"And making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on foreign soil is generally considered out of bounds."

Let me see.  So is lying to Congress, withholding evidence, torturing prisoners, pissing on allies at a time of War and handing over war-making to mercenaries.  What's your point exactly?

Shouldn't Obama just have said, "there he goes again"?

Let's not be so hard on Dubya; his family has long struggled against appeasement and he has a right to be proud of that legacy.  While much of the world was caving in to Hilter's aggression, the Bushs of the 1930s patriotically gave up both tennis *and* polo to counter to NAZI menace.

This is a silly move on Bush's part. The Democrats are mightily trying to characterize a McCain presidency as a third term for Bush and here he is helping out by debating long distance with Obama, almost as a surrogate for McCain. Mac badly needs to differentiate himself from Bush because of the latter's failed policies and unpopularity. This is a craven attack on foreign soil and an untruth as well. Bush has demagogued on terrorism for nearly seven long years now.

Bush knows that an election of Obama represents a complete repudiation of him and everything he thinks he stands for by America. It will be very hard for him to stand by and risk that happening. It must gall and terrify him that America so hates him they will entrust the country to a skinny one term black Senator with the strange name of Barack Obama. What other things can he do to shore up his image? He already has given up golf in his support of the troops, must he give up yachting as well?

My biggest fear about Obama is that he will cave on Iran. Calling Israel a "stalwart ally" doesn't cut it with me if there is no follow through. It is also unfair to blame Israel's predicament on Bush. It is a direct result of the decision to unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon that empowerd Hezbollah, the Palestinian rejection of the perfectly reasonable offer made by Barak, the intifada that followed, and the decision to unilaterally to withdraw from Gaza that empowered Hamas. These were all purely Israeli decisions.

The Iraq war was certainly handled incompetently, but unlike Obama I do not disputes its intentions, which were to bring a stable government into being there that respects the rights of its citizens and keeps order.  

Obama's position on Hamas is inconsistent. Like it or not Hamas has been elected into power by the Palestinians and control Gaza. If he advocates talking to the Iranians who rattle sabers and talk of eliminating Israel with atomic weapons, then he should advocate talking to hamas as well.  

"Bush is wrong, or at least substantially misleading"

Bush is correct, many Obama suporters including Carter  believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,  and hope that some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

Why is telling the truth  considered "smear" ?

jacobt1: Because nobody thinks Bush is talking about Carter.  Obama has repeatedly and publicly said that he won't talk to Hamas, and disagrees with Carter for doing so.   But hey, let Bush pick all the fights with Obama he wants.  I agree "there he goes again" is the appropriate response.

Chris Orr-

You write: "Bush attacking Obama, and Obama counter-attacking Bush, while John McCain sits on the sidelines, is a disastrous dynamic for the GOP. The more Obama can frame this race as him vs. the most unpopular president in modern history, the easier a time he'll have in the fall."

Bingo.

Jacob: and many Bush supporters are racist fuckheads, anti-Semites, armaggedon-believing millenarians and so on.  Too many to name here.  And I have absolutely no doubt that many Hillary supporters - like that woman interviewed after the WV - are also racist, ignorant, anti-Semitic, etc. ...

Here is a piece advice you should write on a parchment, roll up and shove deep in your arse for proper and deep absorption: "We are not judged by those who might lend us a hand, but rather, by those whom we seek to lend a hand to."  Give up this tired trope of "Carter supports Obama and so Obama must be a Hamas supporter."  It is intellectually bankrupt and comically refutable.

Finally, given that Bush's "ingenious" argument in Iraq has led to the strengthening of Iran, given that Bush's negotiators have, in fact, negotiated with Iran, and given that the Bush Administration is - at this moment, as you blather on denigrating diplomacy - is engaged in assessing a diplomatic "package" presented by the Iranian government, I suggest you lick back the vomit you have presented here in the guise of an "argument".

Jacobtl: Jimmy Carter is being Jimmy Carter. We are talking about the candidate himself here. Seems you missed that.

r-ennis: I don't know what you mean by "cave" on Iran.  The US policy on non-proliferation is non-partisan.  The challenge is not whether or not to stop Iran, but to find the means of doing so.  The US abandonment of Afghanistan, the failed Iraq policy, and the US addiction to oil that has helped push Iran's oil revenues from $7 billion to $100 over the past four years - all of these have emboldened Iran's adventurism; whether Obama or McCain talks to Iran or not is not going to change these dynamics.

We can, I think, agree that the US is not in a position to invade Iran, and Iran is not a country easily invaded.  We can, I think, agree that any massive attack that results in a serious destablisation of Iran could have consequences that makes Iraq appear an Island of Stability by comparison.  We can, I think, agree that Iranian surrogates in Lebanon have control over a large number of conventional medium-range missiles aimed at Israel's heart-land that could and probably would be unleashed if Iran is attacked directly.  We can, I think, agree that the Iranian mullahcracy/kleptocracy, despite its intransigence and rhetoric, is fairly realistic in terms of assessing how far and how openly they can be provocative.  All of this means that there are "ingenious arguments" that could be deployed in the course of negotiations to bring them to heel.

It is the mark of a weak person who thinks that simply by sitting down to talk, we are "caving" ...

Well, liberal reformer, icarusr, kagoss718,

Do you believe that we should negotiate with Hamas?

Obama stated policy   It is intellectually bankrupt and comically refutable.

He has promissed to meet  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  who said  that the State of Israel is a "stinking corpse"  but he refuses to have low level contacts with Hamas led goverment of Gaza. Give me a break.  He just panders to Jewish voters.

icarusr,

"It is the mark of a weak person who thinks that simply by sitting down to talk, we are "caving" "

So, why Obama doesn't argue this point? Instead, he pretends that Bush "smears" him.

This discussion reminds me of Jeremia Wright discussions.

On one hand Obama supporters in the blogs and the press mostly agree with  Jeremia Wright , on another hand, any suggestions that Obama might agree with Wright  were considered racist smear

jacob, you gotta learn to read:  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.

That is arguing that point, you just can't ignore what was said then complain that it wasn't said simply because you refuse to listen.

Beyond that, Israel does negotiate with Hamas daily, do you think the food shipments, oil shipments, medical aid, etc. all arrives in Gaza by magic? Now should the US negotiate with Hamas? If Israel requests that we do so, of course. Another basis would be if Hamas recognizes Israels right to exist.

There is no more odious country in the world than North Korea, yet the United States negotiate with them all the time. Do you think we should stop doing so?

Bush's history is all wet.  We sat out WWII until we were attacked, though we were aiding our European allies in many different ways.  Neither course of action was appeasement.

Second, his logic is all wet.  If he's saying that not going to war with terrorists is appeasement, then the Bush administation is appeasing Iran and Hezbollah, to name just two.  

If George W. Bush can give up golf, why can't he give up appeasement.

Dan

Jacob: cutting and pasting my own comments, changing the context, and then attacking me with my own distorted words ... how novel! what genius!  Why, just like Rove, just like "turd blossom" ... what turd.

He actually as not "promised" to meet Ahmadinejad, and if you have that "promise" somewhere - the actual quote, not some right-wing distortion of it - please produce it.  As well, Ahmadinejad has referred to Israel in many ways, "stinking corpse" - no, because in fact it does not translate into a recognisable slur in Persian.  His latest comment about Israel was to compare it to "a dead mouse", but the full sentence was so comical - in fact, as incoherent as your own sentences - that it was laughed at even in conservative newspapers in Iran.

In any event, as Blackton said, the US negotiates with North Korea; it negotiated with Iraq in 1990, just before the first Persian Gulf War.  The US, and Israel, and every other country in the world routinely negotiate with terrorists - in fact, that is how hostages are released, you moron - so the point is not negotiation, but the basis for it and the desired/expected outcomes.  In any event, Obama has been clear on Hamas, as he had to be, even if the policy, such as it is, is somewhat incoherent.

Finally, this is the problem with having an illiterate President and a population that is raised on slogans and buzz-words, rather than educated in history.  To negotiate is not to appease in the pejorative sense of the latter.  Historically - going back to Munich and just before - the negative sense of the words refers to a series of approaches, attitudes and policies that ultimately culminated in Chamberlaine's infamous comment about how fantastic it was for Londoners to be fitted with gas-masks because of problems of a country far away and of a people of whom the British knew nothing.  The policy, underwritten by a Conservative government on the basis of "what is good for the British industry", was basically to disarm unilaterally while at the same time negotiating away the land and liberties of other countries.  EVEN IF a Democrat, or any US President, proposes to negotiate with Hamas or any other terrorist group, no such approach could reasonably, under any historical sense of the word, be called "appeasement".

In short, Bush's despicable invocation of Chamberlain, is the use of an ahistorical and inaccurate negative buzzword to clobber the opponent with - something of which Joe McCarthy and Bush pere would be proud of.

We don't have an Iran policy that works.  Either we have to think this through again, without Bush-Cheney idiocy, or we let things drift to where bad stuff happens and we've no leverage anymore.

Obama's policy direction is consistent with understanding (a) that Iraq has negatively affected our room to maneuver in the region and (b) that you can't negotiate effectively if you make the results of negotiation the pre-condition for negotiating.

"In any event, as Blackton said, the US negotiates with North Korea; it negotiated with Iraq in 1990, just before the first Persian Gulf War."

The issue is not negotiations.

The issue is the foolish promise that Obama made during one of the debate to meet all worst dictators all around the world during his first year in the office,

Re negotiations with Hamas. As I predicted

You  suggest that we should negotiate with Hamas;

You give Obama pass for saying that he wouldn't negotiate with Hamas.

You attach Bush for saying that many democratic activists like you  want to negotiate with Hamas.

Icarusr: You are one of the better posters out here, intellectually engaged, able to confect a lucid argument, polemically gifted. But your animus scares me, frankly.

Jacobtl: First off, I am not an Obama supporter but I don't think that you are literate or attentive enough to have realized that. I have grave reservations about Obama and have stated so repeatedly out here (cf. my post on The Spine today). That said, Obama has not - I repeat not - come out in favor of negotiating with Hamas. I really detest people who concoct pseudotales out of whole cloth. If you are an advertisement for conservatism, then give me liberalism (or death). Back it is for you to Murdoch's rag, The Weekly Standard, or probably and much more aptly, Human Events, where you can mainline that fruitball A. Coulter.

No, no, jacob.   And no again, for good measure.  Let's break this down.

"Talking" is not the same as "appeasment", the pejorative (thanks for the really interesting post about that, icarusr).   So to say so is dumb.  Childish.

No one, however, is suggesting WE negotiate with Hamas.   Your point was repuditated on two levels.  Obama is not going to sell out Israel.  But the act of talking to bad people is not in and of itself bad.   These are not contradictory policies.  I think Obama is right not to talk to Hamas, or Hezbollah, but is right to talk with Iran (which we already are, by the way).  

Here's the thing- there is little reason for us to talk to Hamas.  Unless the recognize Israel and stop firing rockets at them, there is nothing we can do with them.  So: it would be wrong to talk to them.  Israel can, because of the realities of the situation.  Dig?  

Jacob: You're either badly dyslexic, an illiterate, a moron, or a Republican.  You choose; I can only judge by your replies that you are one of the above.  Not worth my time to respond to your distortions.  Read the note below and, as I said, write on a parchment so that you don't forget.

"Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton was asked by MSNBC's Keith Olbermnann whether she'd "reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians." Yes, she said, and "I don't see that as a sign of weakness, I see it as a sign of strength. ... I would immediately open a Democratic track.""

icarusr,

"Not worth my time to respond to your distortions."

So, don't.

"Yes, she said, and "I don't see that as a sign of weakness,"

Clinton was attacked by progressive activists for refusing personally to meet unconditionally with worst dictators, while Obama agreed to do so.

boneill  

"No one, however, is suggesting WE negotiate with Hamas."

Really, no one?

tnr.com/.../story.html

Perhaps most controversially, its founder favors negotiating with Hamas. "Should there be attempts to engage Hamas and to find dialogue with them? Yes, " Ben-Ami said last month. One of the other brains behind the group, Daniel Levy, a British-born Israeli citizen and former adviser to Knesset member Yossi Beilin of the left-wing Meretz Party, has been a vociferous advocate of negotiating with the terrorist group.

Oh, Sorry Jacob.  I forgot that the people you were arguing with on this thread are the ones talked about in the article.  

Sheesh...

LR: "I really detest people who concoct pseudotales out of whole cloth." ... MY animus scares you? ;-) I don't detest anyone - and thanks for the compliment.

Bone: Thanks.

Jacob:

"WE" = America

"Daniel Levy, a British-born Israeli citizen and former adviser to Knesset member Yossi Beilin of the left-wing Meretz Party" NOT= "WE"

"I would immediately open a Democratic track."  No one attacked Mrs. Clinton for this; they attacked her, if anyone did, because of the way she went after Obama on this issue, when the essential position - IMMEDIATELY opening a diplomatic track with the Syrians and the Iranians - was the same.

Now repeat after me: "See Jane.  See Jane run.  See Jacob.  See Jacob fail first grade English."  With supporters like you, no wonder Clinton is losing.  

Icarusr

I give up.

You can't argue with Obama cultists.

Not only they deny that negotiations with Hamas is a popular idea among Obama supporters they  insist that  "No one, however, is suggesting WE negotiate with Hamas"

Obama cultists deny that Obama promised to meet unconditionally with worst dictators .

Never mind.

MUNICH! MUNICH! MUNICH!....Over in Israel today, George Bush compared Democrats to the Hitler appeasers who sold out Czechoslovakia just before World War II. Barack Obama shot back that this was a "false political attack" and that Bush was a liar....

jacob, babe, Bush had his only real success with North Korea after he began to negotiate with them, and you have to know that Bush's going to the Beijing Olympics is as a form of thanks to the Chinese for cracking down on North Korea. Need I remind you of the recent Chinese oppression in Tibet? But Bush not only meeting with the leaders of the world largest dictatorship is fine with you, but in essence he is giving the greatest legitimacy to them by going to the Olympics.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Bush doing so. My problem is that you simply don't get such things.

Of course there are times you have to meet with the worlds worst dictators, and there are times we have to negotiate with them. Honestly, how obtuse are you? You know, the United States has pledged to never invade Cuba based on an agreement we made with a country (USSR) that no longer even exists. Such is the thing of diplomacy. Shall we invade Cuba then?

blackton,

What's your point?

I'm not saying that meeting  with the worlds worst dictators is wrong.

Obama and Bush agree that it's wrong. Obama is complaining  that  he is being included in a group of

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,"

RE Obama. and negotiations. The issue is not negotiations. Obviously that US  must negotiate with enemies.

The issue is a foolish promise to meet all worst dictators in PERSON  during the first year. That was foolish.

Obama is complaining  that  he is being included in a group of "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,"

That would be because he IS being accused of being an appeaser:

" Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error."

www.breitbart.com/article.php

Barack has already explained why he would meet with these people; to even think up this kind of sentence in response to that question is political double-talk for "I think he's an appeaser, but if I say it like that I'll blow my "clean campaign" facade, but if I don't say it outright the people will get the hint".

"The issue is a foolish promise to meet all worst dictators in PERSON  during the first year."

Obama never said anything about meeting with Bush or Cheney!

www.youtube.com/watch

As for the second worst dictators in the world, I think it would be viewed very positively by many of them that Obama would agree to meet with them in person from the start. This would be in addition to a default level of respect for being African-American; unlike certain Americans, muslims SINCERELY LIKE African-Americans and Blacks...by default...something about continental plates, I think...this adds up to Obama being capable of pulling off some diplomatic successs the likes of which the worlds WORST dictators never imagined.

Besides, Obama didn't agree to suck their toes, just to meet with them.

If you want to see foolish, you should review W's policies regarding diplomatic relations and intelligence gathering; THAT is truly foolish.

Achmadinnerjacket may be the deluded leader of a dangerously ambitious state, but once again I think it's important to establish a couple of facts:

1.  He is not a dictator because there is a twisted and constricted but nonetheless functioning electoral system in Iran.  A. is not without some democratic credentials.  If we wish to proceed to a better relationship with a non-threatening Iran, we might want to consider the facts, rather than the deluded fantasy from whoever is drafting the next bunch of talking points for the White House.

2.  He is not a dictator because there is a complicated leadership structure in Iran, including groups with other kinds of agendas from A. and the Rev. Guards.  His power is not absolute, and a decline in his popularity would be good for us (as, in fact, a decline in Bush's popularity has possibly been good for Iran).  If we wish to resolve the (I agree) major threat from Iran, we might want to consider how unthought-out, foolish, badly planned, and otherwise dangerous actions from our side might contribute to making the situation worse.

3.  If he is a dictator in some form, we are helping him because we have removed the one major threat to Iran in its own neighborhood -- Saddam Hussein.  We've been the gift that keeps on giving as far as Teheran is concerned, and the refusal of the Bush-Cheney axis to recognize that basic fact is, for me, one of the major reasons why their management of U.S. foreign policy should not continue one more day than constitutionally necessary.

TNR Making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on fore

blogs.tnr.com/.../the-republican-ob...