Estrich is worried—and she knows whereof she speaks
Susan Estrich is worried that Obama’s lead in the polls isn’t what it should be at this point. Her opening gambit is pretty funny:
July polls don’t tell you who’s going to win in November. Just ask President Dukakis or President Gore, both of whom were well ahead in July and went on to lose in the fall (although Mr. Gore still doesn’t quite see it that way).
Estrich speaks with the (in her case gravelly) voice of experience. In her op-ed piece she refers to ex-Presidential hopeful Mike Dukakis as “my old candidate,” but what she leaves out is that she was his campaign manager in 1988. Perhaps she has PTSD from having watched his once-high poll ratings drop like a stone as the election drew near. If so, I wouldn’t blame her one bit.
Estrich describes the reasons Obama should be way ahead at this point, and I think she’s correct in her assessment. I hope she’s correct in her worry as well—and that’s not because I dislike her; I don’t. I just (as anyone who’s read this blog in the last few months knows) am singularly unimpressed by Obama’s capabilities to lead the nation in the right direction.
Estrich was a Hillary supporter. But now she’s thrown her lot in with Obama, with whom she has at least thing in common in addition to their political affiliation: she was the first female President of Harvard Law Review, and he the first African- American one. So perhaps that identification with Obama is part of what is clouding her vision and causing the puzzlement she expresses in her final paragraph about why Obama isn’t cleaning McCain’s clocks right now:
Is it that people still don’t know enough about [Obama]? No candidate in my lifetime has ever gotten better press coverage, more adoration from the media. Being attacked by Jesse Jackson is a gift of major proportions. Maybe it just hasn’t showed up yet in the numbers. Maybe race is a bigger factor than people want to admit. Maybe people just need to be convinced on the experience front. But whatever it is, Democrats should take note.
Well, take note Ms. Estrich: it’s because Obama is a man of little experience who has shown little wisdom or trustworthiness in the campaign. Perhaps campaign managers consider themselves to be PR geniuses who can sell anything, but how can people be “convinced on the experience front” when the experience simply isn’t there?
And while it may appear that we don’t know enough about Obama, we know much more than we used to (and perhaps all that he’s letting us know), and more and more people are either disliking what we know or distrusting what we know, or both.
No, Ms. Estrich, the problem is that Obama makes your old candidate Mike Dukakis look good. He was a politician with a past we could understand, and he seemed to have a few principles in which he believed. He may have been perceived as a wishy-washy liberal, but at least the American public felt they knew who he was.
Maybe we should know more about Obama right now but we don’t, and it’s not for lack of trying. What we do know is that he is a man whose true views are still opaque—and probably purposely so—no matter what his mellifluous rhetoric, whose ambition and arrogance appear phenomenal even for a politician, whose lack of experience is unprecedented, and who has held himself out to be a better kind of politician but whose campaign has demonstrated an almost breathtaking hypocrisy.
Could it be, Ms. Estrich, that the problem is that the Democrats have chosen poorly? I have a feeling that, as a Clinton supporter, in your heart you know I’m right. But as a good Democrat you just can’t say it.
What surprises me more is that Obama seems to have an empty head. I figured he was more cunning than that. He could be doing much better simply by being more specific, rather than less. His constant flip-flops are likely to catch up to him eventually. If McCain keeps going the me-too route, he’s also likely to suffer.
The problem is Obama fatigue. The religious frenzy of adulation can only be sustained so long, especially with the college student demographic. The best thing McCain could do right now is buy Obama TV time. Lots and lots of TV time.
If McCain wins, will there be additional criticism of the election cycle for being “too long?”
If i didn’t know better i’d think the democrats aren’t really that interested in the Presidency. They’ve just done too well playing like the anti establishment underdog in a struggle with the rich establishment. Kind of hard to play the victim card to evil republicans if they get taken totally out of the picture.
See an excellent article on Obama’s sense of humor (or lack of it):
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article702892.ece
I hope, I pray , or as much as an agnostic can pray, that she is correct. To what degree will the Obambi worshipers let the light of reason into their heretofore closed eyes? That is a question that the next three and a half months will answer for us.
The problem is going to be if/when they lose. We’ll be lucky if we just get the “stolen election” rubbish again. We’re likely to get Weatherman/SDS redux, as frustration with electoral politics metastizes into domestic terrorism.
Is it so wrong that whenever I listen to Estrich speak even half a sentence I want to strap a ball-gag on her?
Is it so wrong that whenever I listen to Estrich speak even half a sentence I want to strap a ball-gag on her?
No, Just so long as this BDSM fantasy with her ends right there!
Yesterday, on TV, I heard this Obama guy, whom everyone says is so smart, say:
“I’ll work to lock down the loose nuclear weapons.”
Lock Down Loose Nuclear Weapons?
My wife jumped when I heard that on his campaign commercial and I yelled: “Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! What the F*&^???!!!”
Obamba is an imbecile. A mental midget. A flower raised in the hot-houses of Chicago politics.
“I’ll work to lock down loose nuclear weapons.”
Oh, no….
I’ve never heard anything so stupid, unprofessional, and unprepared by a presidential candidate on a campaign commercial!
I used to be disgusted. Now I’m afraid.
[NOTE from neo-neocon: Troll attack edited out—for now. I would have been on the case earlier but I was busy last night and just got to my computer today.]
Anyone else feeling some serious Deja Vu?
Wasn’t me. I didn’t do it.
Gray: Wasn’t me. I didn’t do it.
Gray, Ain’t no one accusing you, that I know of. It appears to be poster sdfs @ 3:08 p.m.
Me either.
neo, cleanup on aisle four!
What the…? How’d they do that?
“sdfs” exhibits the kind of behavior we have come to expect from the Far Left in this country: destruction, nihilism, no serious ideas, and alliances with our nation’s enemies.
Pardon my language, but f**k people like “sdfs” for the retards that they are. This was a thread that could have had an interesting discussion. Instead, it’s been sabotaged by an imbecile who cannot carry a solid point of view in defense of Obonga.
These people never cease to amaze me with their vapid, vaporous faux intellectualism.
So not accident but sabotage, y’think… I wondered. But I still don’t know how s/he did it. (It’s probably in The Anarchist’s Cookbook, Millenium Edition or something.)
Neo,
This is one of your best articles I have seen. While I disagree with you mightily over McCain (Raises fist in air, yells “McCain!!!!!” and spits), I think this was a good article. I sent a link to one of the writers over at Newsbusters. I asked them to link to it.
Somewhat like putting your fingrs in your ears and yelling, “No! No! No! when mommy tells you something you don’t want to hear isn’t it?
What a mess. Yes, it was probably sabotage.
And this is just why I do not want this guy to win. The press follows him around like he is Princess Di, his fan club is downright scary in their mindless adoration and the guy does not even know what he is talking about.
I was not crazy about Hillary. But she did not scare me the way Obama does. There is something not right about this guy and his campaign.
You know, way back over three decades ago when I was on the Left this kind of behavior was very rare. At least in the academic circles I ran in. And I’m not trying to brag, but I always took the high road. But today, these people on the Left have a crowd that is much more “in ‘yer face.” And less grounded in the philosophical traditions of the West, including Marxist thinkers.
Now that I’ve evolved in the opposite direction over the course of nearly 20 years, I’ve come to experience people on this side of the fence generally more mature and honest. And I would never, ever go on over to DailyKos, MoveOn, or Huffington to engage in ridiculous, obstreperous behavior just to sabotage threads.
In my above post that’s about as foul-mouthed and angry you are going to see from me here. And I think it’s justified. We should never have to suffer morons like this. And the fact that so many of them are Obonga supporters IS a little frightening. Hey, Susan Estrich, why don’t you come on over to Neoneocon’s weblog and see what one of Obonga’s finest has done, and then tell me you are going to support that long-legged mack daddy for POTUS?
Too bad about the sabotage, but rather revealing about the ‘progressive’ mind-set.
It seems to me that Obama is just the latest trick that the democrats have tried to foist on the American public.
Just from recent memory, in 2000, they tried to pass Gore off as an experienced statesman and a Vietnam vet, but it came to light that he’d only been in country for four months, working, if I remember correctly for Stars & Stripes and ha had a body guard and his debates with Bush ended any pretence to statesmanship. Then in 2004, well everyone remembers Kerry ‘reporting for duty.’
Having failed to pass themselves off as serious about defending America, having failed to articulate any sensible alternatives to republican policies, having utterly failed to end the ‘culture of corruption’ as they promised in 2006 if elected into a majority and having staked so much on our armed forces being stalemated at best in Iraq, the democrats have had to retreat and have decided to run a cipher.
I suspect that they hope that by flogging the hope and change theme that the public will paint whatever picture suits them on this blank canvas and that that will get them enough votes. Yet more evidence that the democrats have been out of ideas since LBJ. Perhaps we are seeing the end of the democrats? Let’s hope.
The sabotage this evening should come as no surprise. For several years conservative speakers have been unable to speak at college campuses without extensive security preparations. It’s right in style and typical for the hard international left that is now dominating the democrat’s party. This is not evidence that “perhaps we are seeing the end of the democrats”. Wish it were so, but in fact the far left-wing movement, and control of the democrats is pervasive and growing, and becoming very mainstream. From global warming, exemplified by Gore’s lame speech today, to the dem’s every bit the manchurian candidate, Obama, the dumbing down of maintream American is now prevalent over any sense of critical thinking and common sense, or respect for traditional American values and freedoms. This is a movement that prattles about the evils of Guantanamo and the rights of the enemy, but plots agendas which, directly and indirectly undermine the American public’s financial and representative security. We can at least be thankful that the polls are now showing an almost even, 50-50, split now for the coming election.
52 million in June is the second highest fund raising record for Obama (previously 55 million).
Excuse me, but I’d like more detail on a couple of points:
1) What exact problem does the phrase “lock down loose nuclear weapons” show? We have already seen nuclear materials and technology appearing on the open market. As I recall, both writers and regulators have raised concerns about nuclear weapons in various arsenals with inadequate safeguards. Uncertainties exist about the location of and accounting for substantial amounts of weapons grade material world wide. If a president has no business addressing these problems, why the concern about the possibility that Iran (or Iraq) might obtain nuclear weapons?
2) Who or what does hte name Obonga refer to?
John Spragge :
2) Who or what does hte name Obonga refer to?
It combines Obama + bong.
Bong= water pipe, often associated with marijuana. In my younger days, I was known to have on occasion inhaled, in contrast w Bill Clinton, cannabis combustion product emanating from a bong.
“What exact problem does the phrase “lock down loose nuclear weapons” show?”
Well, let’s see…
For one, how? How is the President in a position to “lock down loose nuclear weapons”? And the phrase began with “I’ll work”–does that mean that Obama himself will carry the chains and padlocks? Does he think that the U.S. is not now doing exactly what he’d be doing to prevent nuclear proliferation? How will he stop NoKo and rogue Russian elements from trafficking in nuclear materials/expertise? Has he formulated a plan or policy? What is it?
What, in fact, other than splendid rhetoric, is his plan or policy for ANYTHING?
1) What exact problem does the phrase “lock down loose nuclear weapons” show?
1) What is a ‘loose’ nuclear weapon? What does that mean? Be precise.
2) How do you “lock it down”? Again, be precise.
“Work to” do something is adspeak, of the same ilk as “helps to.” It means nothing.
I’ve read that advertising copy writers are taught to include these phrases to avoid legal liability that could arise from a more definitive statement lacking them. “Removes plaque” is definitive, testable, and falsifiable. “Helps to remove plaque” is none of these things.
I deleted the sabotaging comments and took some other steps. We’ll see how it goes now.
Who or what does hte name Obonga refer to?
You say: “Obama”
I say: “Obonga”
I say “Hussein”
You say: “How dare you! You bitter gun-clinging, fly-over state, God bothering, racist!”
Stumbley: In fact, I don’t think the current administration has done very well on the anti-proliferation file, and I think the recent about face on negotiating with Iran (towards a position much closer to that of Senator Obama) illustrates the problem pretty well. As for Senator Obama’s specific policy proposals, a 30 second google search informed e that he has partnered with Richard Lugar on a bill to provide funds to secure not only nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons of use in a terror attack.
Gray: Please provide exactly the parts of your questions that a look at Obama’s legislative record doesn’t answer.
Spragge:
Ah, er, ah…can YOU refer me to an accurate records of BHO’s legislative record, both on the state and national record.
Or, failing that, name the legislation that BHO has introduced during his tenure.
TIA.
Whistling and Waiting…
“In fact, I don’t think the current administration has done very well on the anti-proliferation file”
Well, see, that’s the point. It’s d**n near impossible to do, what with the AQ Khan’s of the world and the NoKo’s subverting all attempts to rein them in. To promise the impossible is apparently Obama’s only skill.
And boy, do we have a set of wordy trolls, or what?
You know about the Hilary supporters that call themselves “PUMAs”? They are saying that some of the delegates are talking about switching their votes back to Hilary. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but Obama does not have a lock on this yet.
Good Ole Charlie: click here or google obama lugar proliferaton
Stumbley: Well, I can think of three things that might help:
1) Talk to the people involved in proliferation, and Seator Obama advises and as President Bush has, after five years, finally started to do.
2) Avoid making proliferation issues into political footballs, to the point of “outing” covert intelligence agents working on the file.
3) Ratify treaties intended to reduce proliferation, such as the comprehensive test ban treaty.
In any case, the it doesn’t work to claim that President Bush’s inability to achieve a desired goal proves that goal unattainable. You cannot credibly say that of any politician at all, bit it has particular credibility problems in regard to the George (II) Bush Administration.
John Spragee thinks getting on one’s knees begging the Iranians to be nice impresses the Iranians.
How little he understands how repulsive weakness is to the Muslim mindset.
John Spragee would do well to listen to the words of an Iranian-born dissident. This is what he wrote when that pathetic NIE came out regarding Iran’s nuclear program. It ijust as valid today:
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=2
The Bomb, Iran’s Mullahs and Doomsday
Sunday, 16 December 2007
It is the holiday season and we all have received this most welcome present: the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear problem. Since 2003 the mullahs running Iran have, on their own and through their own goodwill, have ceased all activities aimed at acquiring the bomb, so says the report.
Superficial reading of the CIA’s presentation of the findings is the comfort pill that successfully sugar-coats swallowing even the most unpalatable news.
A word of advice for President Bush: now you can also relax and give the celebratory mood a boost by ordering the armed forces to stand down. We have enough trouble in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots of the world. This huge worry about the mullahs’ bomb is a distraction and doesn’t rate anything. Why listen to the warmonger alarmist Dick Cheney and his Neo-cons and keep us all in a jittery mood about the men-of-Allah mullahs?
Mr. President, in addition to the comforting NIE report (which was incidentally ordered by your adoring fans, Congress Democrats), you probably want to hear the dissenters and the skeptics before impulsively singing the praise of the mullahs, as Jimmy Carter did, or hastily launching a re-enactment of “ Shock and Awe,” this time on Iran.
* Prudence demands that you, as our President, make your decision on the basis of facts, first and foremost, and then weigh the opinions, conjectures, and advice of others. You need to do the same with the report. Don’t let the medium, the clever packaging of the report, become or even obscure the message. Once you do that, you will find an awful lot of troubling issues. Let me summarize things as I see them.
* Iran, under the late shah, launched a plan to achieve “Surge Capacity:” A code word for getting all the ingredients and procedures down pat for making the bomb quickly, short of actually making it; a clever power-play.
* A saint and revered man of God, according to none other than Jimmy Carter (who considers himself as another great man of God), the late Ayatollah Khomeini cancelled the nuclear program with the same saintly and prompt edict that he cancelled the life of thousands of Iranians for daring to disagree with his system of medieval Sharia rule.
* After Khomeini’s demise, another mullah much more crafty and ambitious, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, became the president and re-activated the program secretly, while the IAEA watchdog snoozed contentedly on the job.
* Decades later, some Iranians opposed to the rule of the murdering mullahs finally by-passed the watchdog and showed the world proof positive that the mullahs were racing tirelessly with their scheme of getting the ultimate weapon. This information greatly alarmed the United States of America and Israel. The revelation seemed to bother no European nation, the Russians, or the Chinese. Somehow these nations figured that they would let the U.S. do all the worrying about the looming menace while they focused on the lucrative business deals they had diligently worked out with the mullahs: something reminiscent of the cozy deal the French and the Russians had going with the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.
* As time went on, you, Mr. President vowed that Iran would never be allowed to achieve its goal during your watch. You kept using all kinds of threats and promises in order to persuade the mullahs to drop the project, to no avail. When a belligerent end-of-the-worlder, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad, became the Islamic Republic of Iran’s president, things started heating up greatly. Time and again, the bellicose Ahmadinejad kept vilifying the Great Satan and its sidekick Israel for having the gall to demand Iran abandon its program while his two main adversaries had their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad informed the world that what the Islamic Republic does is within its own national rights. He shored up his credibility cleverly by dispatching endless series of negotiators to meetings with the Europeans. He was successfully stalling for time, while working around the clock to get to the Surge Capacity.
* The NIE report assures us that the IRI abandoned its nuclear weapon program some three years ago. So, there is really nothing to fear and even less reason to maintain the dangerous game of brinksmanship with the mullahs. Upon superficial reading of the report one may get the impression that the mullahs are not exactly the saints of Allah as Jimmy Carter had thought them and helped bring them to power. Yet, they neither are as scheming un-repenting villainous zanies that their enemies portray them.
* Now we have something that no one could imagine was possible only weeks ago. The latest comprehensive NIE report has something in its sleigh to appease, if not please, all the quarrelling children. Ahmadinejad boasts to the world that it stood up to the Great Satan, embarrassed it and didn’t even blink. You, Mr. President, can meekly end your term without having to make good on the threat of using force to make the mullahs drop their bomb quest. The Democrats who hate you and the Republicans more than they dislike or fear the zany bomb-wielding mullahs can happily celebrate and have new ammunitions for their weapons to capture the White House. The IAEA can keep its plush job of trotting around the world and doing nothing to warrant its existence. The Europeans can keep on doing lucrative business with the gas station the mullahs operate. The U.N. Security Council can stall, water down, or completely abandon any new sanctions on the IRI. The Russians and the Chinese can delight at the U.S. humiliation and keep on making money from their nuclear and oil deals. See how great it is? Just one report and a huge problem is solved and everyone is happy.
* But I hate to be the dissenting voice. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, particularly now that the West and much of the non-Islamic world is preparing for holiday festivities. Threats to my life by the Islamists have failed to silence me. I have not taken to remaining silent just to keep people in their comfortable deadly delusions. Here is my take on the whole thing.
1. The best predictor of the future is the past. The religious fanatic mullahs’ record is one of deception, dissimulation, treachery, violence and much more. These Quran-trained and directed agents of a wrathful Allah can never be trusted. They are master schemers. They have been at the business of scheming for centuries. They have perfected the art of deception, doubletalk, double-dealing and treachery. Hence, for the NIE’s report to be based primarily on supposed interception of secret conversations of high-ranking Iranian leaders is nothing more than a practice in gullibility. Prudence demands better proofs, much better proofs.
2. The defected/abducted Iranian general Askari a while back was seen by some as a veritable trough of inside information about Iran’s nuclear program. Yet, this man may simply be a planted mole.
3. If indeed the IRI has abandoned its entire program to achieve Surge Capacity, then why is it that it does not allow the IAEA unimpeded access to over some 30 known facilities? The IAEA is allowed to visit only a handful of them, and only with prior notice.
4. The bleeding heart liberals, otherwise known as the Useful Idiots, citing the NIE demand in chorus that we should immediately begin negotiating with the mullahs with no pre-conditions at all. We never had much leverage with the mullahs. What little leverage we had is wiped out by our own NIE. What these Useful Idiots don’t seem to understand is that one can only negotiate with a party who is indeed interested in negotiation.
The extortion-high oil money has intoxicated the mullahs. They see themselves as the Tolooi (ascending like the rising sun) and non-Islamic world as the Ofooli (sinking like the descending sun). Why negotiate any live-and-let-live arrangement with a dying adversary, they reason. The mullahs are only interested in the eventual full surrender of the non-Islamic world. Any concession they make is either tactical or altogether worthless. These villains have a mile-long sheet of past broken promises and treachery. The Useful Idiots neglect to tell us how one negotiates with these inveterate connivers. They seem to think that throwing a couple of bones to the mullahs will keep them gnawing at the bones and leave their own flesh intact: a deadly delusional and wishful thinking.
5. Some influential pundits pontificate that we can live with a nuclear Iran, if it comes to that. They say that Iran would never use the bomb. Because the mullahs, the fanatic zanies as they may be, are not going to risk Iran becoming a radioactive parking lot by the massive U.S. retaliation. Wrong. Once again, these well-healed arrogant know-it-all pundits are seeing things through their own spectacles.
The civilized people cherish and celebrate life. The Islamists relish death as stated in their ideology and practiced daily. Recall what Hassan Nasrullah; the leader of Lebanon Hizbollah had to say about why his people would prevail in the war with Israel. He said, “Israelis love life. We Muslims love death.” These fanatics firmly believe in an incomparably magnificent pleasure-filled next world that awaits the faithful Muslim. To them, this world is nothing but a heap of dust, while the next is a paradise of eternal lust.
6. It is fine for Hassan Nasrullah to claim the love of death by the faithful. But, do these soldiers of Allah actually walk the walk and actively seek death? The answer is indeed a resounding yes. It is a pillar of belief in Islam that whichever side is killed, Islam and Muslims are the beneficiaries of the death. Based on this horrific ideology of death, the Muslims have visited death on untold numbers of both Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The Khominist regime of the IRI sent tens of thousands of its own children to their death to clear minefields in its holy war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Not limiting itself to this horrific act, the Khominists executed tens of thousands of political dissenters without the least due process. Islam wins, either when you kill or you get killed. That’s the motto of the religion of death.
7. The killer Muslims joyfully strap on bomb vests and detonate them in a marketplace, in a wedding hall, in schools, in hospitals, in funeral processions, and even in mosques. These acts of killing and maiming innocent people happen daily. The bomber kills himself for the privilege of killing as many as possible in the process. The rewards that the killer is convinced awaiting him warrants the most hideous act. And there is an over-abundance of these murderers who vie with one another to kill and get killed.
8. Suicide bombing that maims and kills dozens is often dismissed as an act of aberration by an individual deceived by ruthless conniving handlers. But, no one would ever contemplate using the nuclear bomb when it entails the certainty of his own destruction as well as his country, so goes the deterrence logic.
Logic, what logic? Fanaticism generated by belief defies logic at every bend. A zealot end-of-the-worlder Ahmadinejad has already climbed to a position of great power. What if another Ahmadinejad-type gets to have his finger on the bomb’s trigger? Would he pull it, even if it is going to kill him and all his people? Only a fool would bet against it.
My advice to the President and the people of my adopted country is: go ahead and make merry, enjoy the gift of life, but don’t let down your guard and make sure that no one lulls you into the deadly trap of complacency. Yes, if the mullahs get the bomb, they will make use of it in numerous ways. They will use it for blackmail, they will use it in small packages through untraceable proxies, and they might even launch it by their missiles in a homicide-suicide fashion which is their trademark. After all it is the mullahs’ deeply-held belief that their cataclysmic act will expedite the coming of the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Lord of the Age), whence he would set the world on the righteous course while those who have hastened his coming will be immersed eternally in the joys of pleasure in Allah’s promised paradise
Vince P, instead of copy/pasting the entire article , it would be preferable to link it AND to quote selected excerpts.
The main talking points of an article will take up much less space. Summarizing is also a skill. My first reaction in seeing such a long comment was that it was sabotage, given what has happened the last couple of days. Upon further reflection it was definitely not sabotage. Nonetheless, the argument holds: LINK AND QUOTE SELECTED EXCERPTS.
It will also get more reading of your comment, because a lot of people will blow off long comments. Think of the bloviating of JFKerry, who can talk for ten minutes without enunciating one coherent thought. Conciseness is a virtue, especially in the blogosphere.
Gringo: Now I know who to go to when I need writing advice.
Vince P.
1) I’ve posted my name here a few times. If you can’t get it right by copying it, maybe you could copy and paste, since you’ve established your ability to do that. On the other hand, perhaps the implicit association with Senator Obama should flatter me, since some people who comment here can’t bring themselves to spell his name correctly, either.
2) Neither you nor the author you quote appear to have a realistic understanding of negotiation. Even if we accept that the “Mullahs” want to make a bomb, doing nothing but talk to the current government of Iran still beats doing nothing at all. Negotiating at least offers the opportunity to make it clear who has dealt in bad faith, and still offers some chance to appeal to the Iranians over the heads of their leaders. Since credible reports hold that Iranians generally like the United States, forfeiting that opportunity has never made much sense. It seems the Bush Administration has begun to see it that way as well.
@ John Spragge:
Even if we accept that the “Mullahs” want to make a bomb, doing nothing but talk to the current government of Iran still beats doing nothing at all. Negotiating at least offers the opportunity to make it clear who has dealt in bad faith.
Are you aware that countries in the EU have been negotiating with Iran over the nuclear issue for some years? So much for the unilateral Bush administration. Basically, the Iranians have used negotiations as a delaying tactic. Perhaps the US should negotiate with Iran, but the track record of European negotiation with Iran has been an abysmal failure.
Negotiating ….still offers some chance to appeal to the Iranians over the heads of their leaders
Anyone who believes that the Iranian government listens to its constituents has not been reading much about Iran for the last 3 decades. This is a government that vets who runs for office. If you don’t approve of mullahs running and robbing the country , you don’t get to run for office. Appeal over the heads of their leaders???? That is precious.
Since credible reports hold that Iranians generally like the United States, forfeiting that opportunity has never made much sense.
Again, while the Iranian people apparently have that point of view, the rulers of Iran do not. Death to Israel and America…Holocaust denial conferences….
Gringo: john spragee is in a world of his own.
gringo:
1) Even assuming the accuracy of all your claims, doing nothing but talking still beats doing nothing at all. You say the Iranian government uses negotiation as a delaying tactic; what exactly have they “delayed”? Do you have any doubt that if the Bush Administration had solid evidence the Iranian government had a nuclear weapons program, and the means to end it, that they would hesitate to do so?
2) During the period 2001 to 2003, the Iranian government came close to making concessions which, had they gone through, would have amounted to democratic reform. During this period, the Iranians cooperated with the invasion of Afghanistan and approached the American government for talks. Bush responded by gratuitously declaring the Iranian state enemies, for no apparent reason other than to fill up the required number for an analogy to World War II. The speech had the predicable result of outraging the Iranian people and undermining support for reform and for better relations with the United States. Unless and until the Bush government makes it clear in word and deed that they value the friendship ordinary Iranians have risked beatings or worse to display, then I suggest that claiming an appeal to the Iranian people will not work has little in the way of evidence to back it up. Talking to Iran seems the simplest and smallest step possible in that direction.
In any event, the irony will not have escaped you that I suggest talking, and the Bush Administration has begun to talk. Do you disagree with this decision? On what grounds? Why do you think your president has made a mistake? If you think that Mr Bush has done wrong to change course, and if so, how can you justify endorsing a Republican candidate who has changed course on so many other important issues (the Bush tax cuts and immigration reform, to name two).
Vince P.: If you have no argument to offer, may I suggest you avoid making that fact clear?
As regards the usefulness of negotiating with Iran, I suggest you peruse this article, gtomthree years ago.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7730/
That was an assessment THREE YEARS ago.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7730/
Bush responded by gratuitously declaring the Iranian state enemies, for no apparent reason other than to fill up the required number for an analogy to World War II.
And where have you been the last 29 years? If you need convincing that the mullahs have acted as enemies of the US for that last 29 years, and that the mullahs have considered the US its enemy for the last 29 years, such woeful ignorance cannot be changed by several sentences.
Mr. S., here is what I previously said:
“Perhaps the US should negotiate with Iran, but the track record of European negotiation with Iran has been an abysmal failure.”
Golly gee whiz, Mr. S., why am I not surprised at the latest news?
Might it just possibly be because of the previous track record of negotiations with the mullahs? Just perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386542,00.html
Gringo: it doesn’t do to argue that negotiations with Iran don’t accomplish anything; you also have to make the case that they cost something. Otherwise, doing nothing will certainly accomplish nothing, while talking might accomplish something.
OK, now the Iranian government won’t agree to suspend their enrichment activity while you talk, we’ll refuse to talk and all frown a little harder. Oh, and John Bolton will unleash his terrifying squint. And Tom Friedman will tell the Iranians to go suck on something. And the Iranians will go on selling oil, enriching uranium, and oppressing people. And Iran’s allies in Iraq will continue to blow things up (not that the continuing death toll in Iraq means the surge hasn’t worked, you understand).
You’ll forgive me if I agree with the Americans who want to see something that looks a bit more like success before they vote another Republican into the White House.
The best way to get Iran to negotiate is to destroy their gasoline refineries and blockade all shipments of fuels to them.
About those poll ratings… I have always assumed, merely, that they have always given Democrats an artificial boost. The most politically active and city dwellers are the most often polled. Little towns, smaller cities, and even the burbs are given a frequent pass by the pollsters (or like myself, refuse to communicate with said). Add to that the fact that the questions are often lopsided. Even a slight tilt makes the thing irrevocably off by too many points to be useful.
Let them count, and recount if it makes them happy. I really think if Obama isn’t ahead by 25 points, it is going to be a squeaky deal, if not a reverse landslide (and no, I am not a Mcainnanite). Worse, all of the reps and senators had best be checking their fourty, whether RHINO or Democrat, even conservatives if they have been too wobbly.
John, it costs time.
Time before they have nukes, time that is running out.
Nonsense.
So far, the Bush Administration has taken no effective, concrete steps to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program. This administration seems to have neither the ability to leverage the reservoir of goodwill that millions of Iranians have towards the United States, or to empower the justified discontent with the regime, or to provide an effective military solution.
The choices do not, at this point, lie between talking and something else. So far, the options the Bush Administration has publicly mustered run the gamut from doing nothing but talk and doing nothing.
If you don’t agree, please explain exactly what the Bush Administration could do during or after talks, that they could do if they didn’t talk.