Latest 15 of 19 Total Comments Show All

• 

  Betzee at 11:00 PM JST - 4th October

  Seems the mistake was originally letting out out that they were thinking of meeting. Meeting Iran right now with less than 30 days left until the election doesn't seem appropriate.

  In fact we've been pursuing a policy of engagement with Tehran since early this year. While it's not good for an outgoing administration to develop initiatives which tie the hands of an incoming one, in this case it wouldn't undercut an Obama administration since Barack has gone on record as favoring talks with the Tehran leadership. It would, however, undercut McCain's campaign-trail criticism of his opponent's naivete for entertaining such an idea. So, yeah, it's not appropriate to place partisan advantage above national interest.

• 

  CavemanLawyer at 11:19 PM JST - 4th October

  We'll put diplomats in Iran when Iran gets a decent government.

  Would you suggest an Operation un-Ajax then? Har!

  I am afraid the U.S. has no right to whine about whether the government of Iran is decent or not after destroying a democracy.

  There is no disadvantage to having diplomats talking, not for either country. There are glaring disadvantages to no talking.

  Anyone who views Iran as threat while simultaniously hoping for no diplomatic relations is either a nutcase or actually wants war or maybe both. --Cirroc

• 

  SuperLib at 02:43 AM JST - 5th October

  I can understand how Republicans would want to table the issue so as to not harm McCain, but I think the more compelling reason is that it's not a good idea to change policy 30 days before an election.

• 

  SuperLib at 02:54 AM JST - 5th October

  I am afraid the U.S. has no right to whine about whether the government of Iran is decent or not after destroying a democracy.

  Yeah, but at some point global liberals are going to have to stop giving every other government a free pass just by mentioning America. Shielding Iran from criticism isn't going to get you what you want, it's just going to get them what they want.

• 

  coulrophobic at 03:03 AM JST - 5th October

  "Anyone who views Iran as threat while simultaniously (sic) hoping for no diplomatic relations is either a nutcase or actually wants war or maybe both. --Cirroc"

  Just wondering ~ any condemnation of a rabid, apocalyptic regime that officially denies the Holocaust and repeatedly talks about the destruction of the only democracy in the Mid East??

• 

  Everton2 at 05:38 AM JST - 5th October

  The Republicans have been in charge for the last 8 years and just plainly refuse to take responsibility for anything except the surge.

  The notion that you can actually influence people by not talking with them is absolutely preposterous. The idea that you can openly declare that countries like Iran, North Korea and others constitute evil and expect to influence them is just plain stupid.

  To vote Democrat is a vote in the long term strategic good of our planet our world,

• 

  SezWho2 at 07:42 AM JST - 5th October

  If a policy decision has been made with respect to Iran, the fact that we are 30 days before an election has nothing to do with implementing it.

  There is nothing magical about 30 days. Why not 3 days? Why not 90 days? If Bush intends to implement his policy decision after the election, there is no reason why he should not do it before. And, if it is a matter of leaving policy decisions up to the next President (instead of just not influencing the election), Bush might as well go back to Crawford and cut brush.

• 

  spudman at 07:55 AM JST - 5th October

  need to to spin the wag. 90 days is too far out 3 days too close. Woof Woof

• 

  coulrophobic at 11:43 AM JST - 5th October

  "The notion that you can actually influence people by not talking with them is absolutely preposterous."

  What prevented America's European allies from taking the initiative?

• 

  Helter_Skelter at 04:08 AM JST - 6th October

  coulrophobic

  Just wondering ~ any condemnation of a rabid, apocalyptic regime that officially denies the Holocaust and repeatedly talks about the destruction of the only democracy in the Mid East??

  Well said. Where exactly do you start negotiations with a Iranian president who invites neo-Nazis like David Duke to state-sponsored Holocaust denial meetings?

• 

  SezWho2 at 07:51 AM JST - 6th October

  Helter Skelter,

  Why not start at the beginning? You might as well ask where you start negotiating with people who believe that the world was created in 7 days. You negotiate what can be negotiated and leave what cannot.

• 

  CavemanLawyer at 09:56 AM JST - 6th October

  Just wondering ~ any condemnation of a rabid, apocalyptic regime that officially denies the Holocaust and repeatedly talks about the destruction of the only democracy in the Mid East??

  Rabid? That is an interesting word. It implies that anyone is liable to be attacked. Yet, I cannot remember a single country that the country of Iran ever attacked! Ever! And lo and behold! Not one but TWO of Iran's neighbors have been attacked by the United States, one wholly without merit! And you call Iran rabid?

  Israel the only democracy in the M.E.? And Iran threatens to destroy it? And you are calling Iran apocalyptic? Democracy is great, but it is not the end all be all. Neither is the opposite of democracy evil. Where would you place Egypt? And why so much bile for Iran and none for the U.S. The U.S. did not threaten to destroy a democracy. The U.S. did it! They actually did it! For the love of Pete! What do I have to do to get even a remote sense of consistency around here?

  Officially denies the Holocaust? Is that some kind of terrible, terrible crime? Give us a break okay? Denial of the Holocaust is completely ignorant. That is the worst I can say. Its not on the level of even bombing Hiroshima. Could we focus on real problems here?

  Repeatedly calls for destruction of Israel? I am going to ask you for quotes, because I am wondering if you will be so obtuse as to mention the only one that I know, which is the gross mistranslation of "wipe off the map". If you do bother to mention that one, you only prove, as if we needed more proof, that critical thinking and is just not your game and how you never bother to scratch the surface.

  Criticism of the regime? I don't like the oppressive regime in control of Iran. I believe many of the people of Iran don't like it either. I would much prefer a democracy there (one like the U.S. destroyed). But as long as they stay in their borders and don't make a nuclear bomb, I can't say I am going to be as apocalyptic toward them as the U.S. government or Israel. And if you understand the meaning of apocalyptic, you know exactly what I am talking about. Iran is not the only country guilty, and probably not even the most guilty.

  Now, let us talk about worry. Above you find many reasons for Iran to worry, including finding itself suddenly surrounded by a belligerent enemy called the United States. Israel threatens to bomb Iran time and again. Nobody has any proof that Iran wants a nuclear bomb, even though it would be understandable if they did, given their nuclear neighbors and all those reasons to worry. But Iran has never so much as said they want nuclear bombs. They want nuclear generated power. So does everybody.

  After all this, if you cannot see that Iran has more to fear from the world than the world from Iran, you are truly, truly blind, and your mind is zombified.

  --Cirroc

• 

  CavemanLawyer at 10:29 AM JST - 6th October

  I may have gotten carried away above, but I found the weighted question to be quite out of order. Even so, I may have take coulrophobic to task a little too much. --Cirroc

• 

  Helter_Skelter at 12:50 PM JST - 6th October

  SezWho

  You negotiate what can be negotiated and leave what cannot.

  So then tell me, what can be negotiated with an Iranian president who invites neo-Nazis like David Duke to state-sponsored Holocaust denial meetings?

• 

  SezWho2 at 08:10 AM JST - 7th October

  Helter Skelter,

  Arms control, Iraqi border activity, Gulf access, trade agreements, etc....

  Neo-Nazis and David Duke are irrelevant to negotiations.

Register or login to add a comment!