That the American public is falling for this nonsense?? I haven't seen any and in fact the comments I've seen are that this whole issue is a loser for McCain and a gift for Obama. By taking on this issue Obama has really turned the page on the Democratic Party's long time aversion to national security issues.
Check this out--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
Along with Lobbygate,(3 down 117 to go!) I'd say McW is getting off to a pretty bad (great!) start!! And Cindy still won't release her tax returns.

Republicans like McCain and Bush seem to think attacks like this will work.  They must have focus groups or polling that tells them that, or why else would they do it?

The President of Iran is a complete wack job.  For the President of the US to meet and talk with him is insane.  Didn't you listen to the Iranian's (sorry, I can't spell his name)speech in NYC last year?  Does anyone think that the guy is going to be reasonable.  Remember, he believes we are near the end of the world apocolypse.  Yikes!!!

Talking with N.Korea or Iran at the ambassadorial level is way different than two Presidents getting together for a summit. As for Reagan in Iceland, Nixon to China et cetera, all of those summits had some significant pre-conditions that were favorable to us.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the Iranian President ever being reasonable.  Our best hope is that he will someday no longer be there.  

this option?  Look, I despise the president of Iran and everything he stands for.  I don't want Iran getting nuclear weapons, nor do I want nukes proliferating around the world. But why would we refuse to talk to the Iranians, see if there's any way we can reach some sort of deal, before we start down the path towards possible military confrontation?

Here are the problems with talking to "see if there's any way we can reach some sort of deal":

(1) The Europeans have told us for 5-6 years that they would "talk" with the Iranian President and work it out.  You can see how far they got!

(2)  The UN has been worse than worthless with Iran.

(3)  The US can continue to talk at low ambassadorial levels with the Iranians.  However, I don't see those talks going anywhere until the wack job is gone.

(4)  To have our President meet with him solves nothing and it gives him more prestige.  

As for your link, US military action is not going to happen.  There is no reason for it unless (a) Iran is on the verge of going nuclear (not the case) or (b) Iran attacks Israel (not the case).  The more likely scenario is that Isreal takes action, as they did recently in Syria, and everyone denies involvement.  

You know this...how?

Unless one of the two unlikely options (mentioned in my last message) takes place:

(1)  The US can't fight another war at this time from a military point of view.

(2)  The US can't fight another war at this time from a financial point of view.

(3)  The American people won't support another war at this time.

(4)  The "war" rumors are jawboning techniques that probaby won't work any better than the prior talks with Iran.  

Here is an Israeli option to consider/fear:  An Isreali naval ship(s) fires many missiles that cripples the Iranian oil industry.  As a result, Iran goes into a deep financial crisis without its oil revenues.  Funding for Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist activities drops way off.

I am much more concerned about the Israeli option than any US military action.  

been driven by "pragmatic reasons?"  Also:

1) The US has plenty of carrier-based air power power (not to mention missiles of various kinds) it can use against Iran if it wants to do so.

2) Heck, we can't fight the CURRENT one from a financial point of view, but that hasn't stopped the Bush administration from doing so.

3) The American people overwhelmingly don't support the Iraq war, yet it continues on and on, with a guy who says we might be there 100 years running about even with Clinton or Obama for the White House.

4) Hard to say, but that's not really a "pragmatic reason."

The Supreme Leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  It is somewhat irrelevant what the personal preference of the president of Iran is on possessing nuclear weapons, he is not the commander-and-chief of Iranian armed forces.  He is only where he is because the Council of Guardians, appointed by the Ayatollah, allowed him to be on the ballot.

Ultimately, the Council of Guardians, Expediency Council and the Supreme Leader of Iran must weigh the punishments of developing nuclear weapons with the benefit of eliminating the prospect of external threats to their sovereignty.  Also, a lot of this relies more on Russia and China than us.  Less and less are we the key player in the world.

Barack Obama:

Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America.

So, you know, for all their tough talk, one of the things you have to ask yourself is what are George Bush and John McCain afraid of? Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that's not a strategy; it's just naïve, wishful thinking. I'm not afraid that we'll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator. It's time for America to win those battles, because we've watched George Bush lose them year after year after year. It's time to restore our security and our standing in the world.

This appeasement argument is merely part of the larger narrative they are trying to create about Obama as inexperienced and naive about the world. So it doesn't matter whether anyone buys into this particular argument -- it will become part of a larger theme that will continue through November.

On a more micro level, McCain and the GOP are also pursuing a strategy to frighten Jews, particularly the large concentration of Jewish retirees in PB, Dade and Broward. Florida is a must win state for the GOP -- McCain can't win without it, while for Obama it would be nice to have, but is not required.

As such, this is part of a second, related narrative about Obama that he cannot be trusted on the issue of support for Israel. The Muslim smear, the Rev. Wright,  the Hamas BS, and now this. It is taking a toll -- I had a conversation with a fellow member of the congregation at my synagogue last Saturday, a very liberal, intelligent and well-informed person, who said he was quite suspicious of Obama on Israel. For him, Obama was a hold-his-nose vote.  I was actually quite surprised.

with two liberal, Jewish friends of my parents this weekend. They were both very uncomfortable with the Rev. Wright thing as well as any Nation of Islam connection.  Needless to say, Jews do not appreciate Louis Farrakhan having called their Judaism a "gutter religion," Hitler a great man, etc.

Thomas Friedman's Sunday OpEd has been one of the most emailed NYT's pieces since it appeared.  Hopefully, his thoughtful words are being disseminated to those who, though perhaps uncomfortable, are receptive to thoughtfulness.

Personally, as an American Jew, I don't vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...

No one expects the U.S. to invade Iran, but military action in the form of bombing to take out their nuclear facilities is definitely a possibility, and has probably been rehearsed by those US carriers in the Gulf. In fact I would expect such an October surprise is in clever Karl's play(with democracy)book.
The simple point must be made that war or military action is and must be last resort (if we have any commitment to the rule of law and natiional sovreignty). If you're not doing diplomacy at all,or pushing it hard enough, last resort becomes, in some cases, the only option and certainly more likely. Refusing to talk to anyone, just because they are demonstrably impaired (wacko) just doesn't cut it. Obvious preparation for any meeting with Ahmedinajad would require lengthy lower level discussions. One could also argue that some US allies are "wacko", (Pakistan, Israel?) or on that basis, who would talk to the United States because what European leader doesn't think Bush is "wacko"?

1)  The US is already engaging in low level talks with Iran.  Therefore, you should not say that the US is "not doing diplomacy at all, or pushing it hard enough."  The Europeans and the UN have spent years with the Iranian President and gotten nowhere.  What makes you think that anyone can get a better result?

2)  To equate the President of Iran with the countries or leaders of Pakistan or Isreal (or even Bush for that matter) is a bit beyond the pale.  I can't believe that you seriously put them in the same category.

3)  The point is that a US President should not meet with the current Iranian President unless he dramatically changes his view of the world (not likely to happen).  

4)  I am getting tired of hearing about an October surprise.  We heard all about that in 2004 and there was nothing.  Tell me, when was the last October surprise?

5)  As for tx2vadem's comment that the President of Iran is "somewhat irrelevant" in view of the position of the Ayatollah Kahmeni, kindly recognize that the President of Iran only does what the Ayatollah authorizes and he was elected because that was whe the Ayatollah wanted.  He is anything but irrelevant.  

Indeed, I am frightened by tx2vadem's other comments that seem to imply a favorable view toward any or all of the group consisting of the President of Iran, the Ayatollah, the Council of Guardians and/or the Expediency Council of Iran.  Those are some really scary people.  

So, you are just reiterating what I said.  You said:

kindly recognize that the President of Iran only does what the Ayatollah authorizes and he was elected because that was whe the Ayatollah wanted

Which makes the most relevant party the Ayatollah and his wishes and not the president of Iran.  Also, I said somewhat irrelevant and not entirely irrelevant.  

I'm not casting a favorable light on any of those people.  I simply stated that the choice is theirs.  Having the authority to weigh consequences and make decisions does not say anything about the people making them.  And stating that they have an interest in self-preservation does not in my mind say anything favorable about them either.  If you still feel that my earlier comment expresses approval of the people or institutions that comprise the government of Iran, please enlighten me as to how I indicated that.

First, I exactly quoted you in my prior e-mail by saying "somewhat irrelevant."  I even used quotation marks.

Second, the President of Iran is not "somewhat irrelevant" (your exact words) because he is acting on behalf of the Ayatollah.  Thus, what the Iranian President says and does is actually very highly relevant.  

Third, I am glad that you clarified your comments about the Ayatollah, the Iranian President, the Council of Guardians and the Expediency Council.  I stand by my comments that "Those are some really scary people."  

In fact, I worry about what those people will do in what you call their "interest in self-preservation."  I cannot imagine (i) a religious leader as the commander-in-chief of the US military, (ii) the right to run for political office in the US being determined by a so-called Council of Guardians, or (iii) something called an Expediency Council making decisions on nuclear weapons in our country.  

Yet, these are the types of people with whom you think we can successfully negotiate -- despite the failures over the past 5-6 years of the Europeans, the UN and even the US to do so.

You said the president of Iran is highly relevant.  What I was pointing out is it is not he that counts, but the Ayatollah, which you agree on.  

I have made exactly two points:
1.  The highest authority in Iran is not the president.  And that people more important than he will make the ultimate decision here.
2.  That the more important players are Russia and China (and I add emphasis now, especially China.  Similar to how China is most important player, in terms of leverage, in N. Korea negotiations).

The rest of the points you are debating, you have created.  I have not argued in favor of anything or anyone.  This includes talking to individuals in Iran as well as the favorability of those individuals.  These are not my arguments, but yours that you are having with yourself.  

4)  I am getting tired of hearing about an October surprise.  We heard all about that in 2004 and there was nothing.  Tell me, when was the last October surprise?

To the degree that words have impact, you are factually incorrect.

Bin Laden: 'Your security is in your own hands'

Friday, October 29, 2004  

(CNN) -- Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotaped message which aired on the Arab language network Al-Jazeera Friday.

You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences. ...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...

The context of the discussion was that the Bushies would pull an October surprise in 2008 -- just as it was repeatedly supposed that they would pull an October surprise in 2004 and 2006.  Neither happened as I recall.  

On the other hand, you are technically correct that Osama bin Laden did attempt to influence our election in October 2004 (just like he did the election in Spain).  

However, please bear in mind that Shenendoah Democrat was talking about an October surprise by Karl Rove -- not an October surprise by a non-American.

need each other, technically speaking.

 

So it seems Oakton is suggesting that when the designated elected representative of a country, however disagreeable, says or does something wacko or out of the "mainstream", we must judge as to whether the US should talk to him?? It's ridiculous to suggest that any democratically elected or even just plain representative of a country that poses a potential threat should be categorically removed from the talk to list.  What standard would you use? Do you have a wacko-meter? Hitler was pretty "wacko" and FDR sent a delegation to meet with him? This whole approach of trying to confront and face down these disagreeable adversaries is what's really wrong, and being open and receptive is the first step towards rectifying the impression of American confrontation and arrogance, which only leads to conflict.

1)  My point is that a US President should not talk to a wacko.  We can have lower level diplomatic discussions (which is what is happening with N. Korea and Iran).  So, please do not suggest that I am saying there should be no contacts.  I am just saying that a US President should not give away the prestige of that office by meeting with the President of Iran.

2)  You falsely imply that I am "suggesting" that we not talk to a country's president if he/she "says or does something wacko or out of the 'mainstream.'"  Again, you have misstated and falsely exaggerated my position.  

There is no doubt that Iran's President is a class #1 wack job.  He wants to wipe out Israel and its people.  He disputes whether Hitler had extermination camps.  He also believes that the apocolypse (end of the world) is at hand.  

That is not merely "something wacko or out of the mainstream," it is out-of-bounds lunatic-like crazy.  I would have hoped that these statements by Iran's President would have met even your standards.

As most of you know I tend to be a independent blue shirt but have worn the red shirt on occaision when I felt it was warranted so bear with me.
I see the benefits of both positions that are being taken which is why it is imperitave that situations are taken for what they are and a policy should not be drafted to be all thyings to all situations.
Case in point. I believe our hands off attitude, "not talking" was not the proper course to take in the struggle between Irish Catholics and Protestants in places like Belfast. I believe based on our principles we should have gotten more involved in that situation and we did not. And yet at the same time, I believe we should in no way have talks with Iran without first having some pretty clear guidelines agreed to like the nuke question. Afterall, we do not have to talk to them outside of bringing some resolution to the involvement they have and are undertaking in present day Iraq. I agree that talking is certainly not appeasement, but someitmes I believe as in Belfast, not talking itself basically can be conceived as appeasing like given nothing changes on the ground. The choice not to act often is as dangerous as the choice to act as history shows us.

You indicate that "not talking" re Ireland was a mistake.  I had not thought about that situation but, upon reflection, I probably would agree with you.  Both sides certainly took tough, extreme positions but I wouldn't lump their leaders in the lunatic category.  My guess is that political and religious issues discouraged our "leaders" from action.

You appear to agree that a US President should not talk with the present Iranian President.  Let's permit the low level talks to continue to see if we can get some concrete concessions before such a meeting.

Talking is not appeasement -- I favor low level talks.  I oppose having our President give any credibility to the current Iranian President.  On the other hand, I also oppose making very bad deals in an effort to obtain good behavior (i.e., appeasement).  For example, only time will tell whether N. Korea has modified its behavior but it is/was worth a try.  

You make some interesting and thoughtful comments.

I am certainly i favor of low level or State Department to a foriegn government acts of diplomacy to bring about compromise in any situation. I do not think bringing the Oval Office guns is appropriate at all in most circumstances. Afterall, was it not Richardson doing most of the talking with North Korea back in the 90's?
I see much of the fallout over this simply being a continuation of the disfavor folks have for Bush. I do not think the position is any different than most in the Office of the Presidency have had post WWII. Many speak about JFK, but even he had folks doing the bidding during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He obviously learned valuable lesson from his father from is experiences as Ambassador to England when Chamberlain was making waves on the front that has created the controversy.
I must office though I do not fear NK in the slightest. I truly believe that situation is simply about leverage and not about a real threat of launch whereas Iran is quite diffferent. I believe there are far greater chance of a missile being fired at Isreal or the West than that of one fired upon South Korea or someplace else launched from that peninsula. I could be wrong but I do think Iran is alot more of an unstable situation, in large part due to the religious issues and "lunacy" you refer.