So, We're Talking to Iran After All
Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 15:46Much has been made of the decision to send our third-highest diplomat to meet with Iran's nuclear envoy. The White House insists that this is not negotiation, and thus not a departure from policy. That seems quite the indefensible statement, since our policy has been "no contact." Nonetheless, I'd like to draw attention to a few items the Bloomberg article (linked above) mentions in passing. Emphasis added:
Burns's participation is a one-time event to show that the five permanent UN Security Council members, plus Germany, are united and to reinforce Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's signature on the incentives package, Perino and McCormack said. Burns won't meet separately with Jalili, they said.
The U.S. initiated the idea of Burns attending the meeting and notified ``a number of diplomatic partners,'' McCormack said.
Now, I'm assuming that Rice isn't going to sign anything that we haven't help to write/draft. So, we've been participating in the diplomatic efforts all along. That's a good thing. The second emphasis merely shows that we approached the others and said "we want a seat at the table." I don't care how Perino tries to spin it, that's a change in the "no contact" policy.
It's good to see them (finally) working on the diplomatic front. "Big stick" diplomacy is still diplomacy.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (18)
"GENEVA — A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment."
And I'm sure Obama will say tomorrow it was George Bush's fault. It's always George Bush's fault. For a man with no ideas, no spine or intelligence, Obam talks a lot. But by all means Obama, you go show the Iranians how you negotiate. My only fear is he'll give away Alaska for our past "misdeeds."
Talking to Iran is like talking to a rabid dog, and both will yield similar negative results.
"But doubt was cast over the value of talks less then an hour after they started, when Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment.
"Suspension — there is no chance for that," he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva's ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.
There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25733175
Of course, Obama will have plenty of chances to sit down and talk to Iran, seeing how he thinks he's going to be President for the next eight to ten years.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/20/obama-ill-be-president-next-8-10-years
I guess Obama thinks they'll repeal the 22nd Amendment just for him. LOL
That tired old constitutional claptrap about 4 year terms is just a mere suggestion from a bunch of irrelevant dead white males. We need to be flexible here. 4 year term, 5 year term, what the heck.
Then there's the matter of an automatic second term, which of course is a given. I mean, who can deny Obama his rights as our new political messiah?
Go for 3 terms, Big O. Maybe 4. Living, breathing Constitution and all that.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! What are you, having a total meltdown over there at the WN Regional Nuclear Plant?
Your narrative of Obama as clueless ignorant dope is interfering with your narrative of Obama as crafty, calculating, angry black radical and Manchurian Muslim.
"Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years."
Oh, oh, somebody went off the script again. That scholar with the affirmative action invite to Harvard needs to read his constitution. PRESIDENT FOR EIGHT TO TEN YEARS?
Well, when one is annointed, as Obama is by the fawning media (see ABC coverage of the Obama Rock Tour), it's not hard to understand why he might decide to become a 10 year president. Or maybe President for Life.
refresh my memory here...
didn't Iran just launch 9 missiles capable of destroying Israel and U.S military bases?
does anybody else see the slight difference here?
Remember, folks, we heard/saw almost identical blustering/actions from North Korea, missile tests and all, and they ultimately came around, yes?
I have no problem with diplomacy, even "Big Stick" diplomacy. In fact, I think that honest attempts at diplomacy lend credence to military action, should the latter become necessary; it's an important step in the "hey, we tried" view people expect to see.
Well, it seems to me any diplomacy that doesn't involve a stick, preferably a Big One, is just indistinguishable from begging.
Still, I am concerned the latest contact is not intended to be anything more than a "hey, we tried" fig leaf.
UN, France, England, Italy, Russia and Germany all chant " hey, we tried fig leaf."
Very Serious Foreign Policy Expert McCain sees possible problems ahead along a nonexistent border.
Don't we all just love lefty blog names. "Think Progress","Thinking Progressively", "Progressive Thinkers" they love the word 'progressive' but they have no new ideas to justify the word. Just warmed over steal from the successful and give to the lazy. This would make for a great Friday caption contest. Find the most absurd left-blog name or make one up if it's possible, to top what is already out there
Oh well I digress, anyone who watches the interview can see McCain knows what he is talking about when the subject is the Middle East. The lefty comments from "Think Progress" go off on the Iraq-Pakistan border comment. Serious people know he was refering to Iran-Pakistan. I mean it's not like he looked in the camera like a suppposed Harvard constitutional scholar running for President and forgot we had that silly 22nd ammendament that would keep him from that 10 YEARS he states he wants to be in office. LOL. Man I want to see those LSAT scores.
Thomas, you pull out the "we know what he meant" defense, yet ridicule anyone who says the same of Obama? Come on, guy, at least apply the same scale to both.
Off Topic to Machiavelli: Check your e-mail when you have an opportunity. I sent you a message regarding the site.
Thanks.
Wes;
Yes, I do hold Obama to a higher standard because were told ad nauseam how smart and "progressive" he is with the facts and direction of this country. If he wants to come down of his hi-horse, lose the smug I know everthing prose and admit he was wrong on at least the surge, until then he gets a short leash.
the word "progressive" has long been redefined as "liberal".