« It's time to bomb Iran . . . |
Main
| Negative, ghost rider, pattern is full »
Le mot juste
26 Sep 2008 10:11 pm
Barack Obama just stated that meeting with crazy authoritarian leaders without preconditions "doesn't mean you invite them over for tea." Coffee, perhaps. An afternoon lemonade. But no tea for Ahmadinejad until he stops with the nuclear weapons nonsense!
TrackBack
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Le mot juste:
» To Talk or Not to Talk……. from Deepish Thought
Atlantic blogger Megan McCardle doesn’t think much of the the ongoing discussion about whether or not the next President should meet with controversial foreign leaders.
To date, the current administration has been pretty resolute in its policy of... [Read More]
The Iraqi Sunni Awakening Consuls are composed of the people who inflicted 70% of US casualties through 2006. We didn't just talk to them. We have been paying them and working on the ground with them on a day to day basis.
Just saying.
I don't get it... Are you mocking Obama? Is this just a light-hearted comment? I'm feeling a little autistic here.
That hole exchange was annoying as heck. They were both basically agreeing with each other, but McCain kept trying to imply Obama was in support of something he wasn't and Obama was trying to correct him, and so they ended up really arguing over a topic where they both seemed to have the exact same stance in the end.
I haven't been paying attention to those on the lower end of the food chain, but I imagine that Jane Galt supports BHO, out of the same endless well of stupidity that caused her to support Bush in 2004. In that case, she might want to point out that BHO confused being prepared to discuss issues with requiring pre-conditions.
And McCain confused meeting with pre-conditions with THE PRESIDENT personally meeting with pre-conditions. Obama never said that, McCain kept insisting he did, and now Kissinger has weighed in saying that he agrees with McCain that the president shouldn't do that, only Obama never said that, and in fact agreed with McCain when McCain said that.
How about a cup of hemlock......?
Been there; seen this. McCain supporters echoing Hillary are trying to tell us what Obama means when we have listened to Obama many, many times ourselves.
Barack reviewed the history: The Bush administration philosophy of "diplomacy" precluded it. Agree to our position and we'll meet. Full agreement was a pre-condition to diplomacy. This precludes substantive diplomacy, particularly with evil empires, where disagreement is most severe.
Barack's State Department will unwind the illogic, and won't insist on full agreement as a pre-condition, even with evil empires. (note that "not full agreement" is not always "no agreement". (Think on this.))
This is not new. (FDR/Stalin; Nixon/China; etc)
The issue about whether the executive himself conducts any of the diplomacy, particularly with tin-pots dictators, is a separate issue.
As executive, Barack is available to participate, no matter how tin-pot the dictator so long as we get something worthwhile. Hillary said the status of the office was too important to soil on banana republics even if we actually get something for it, which seems odd, given how willing Hillary was to soil herself to get the office.
How will McCain manage the State Department, different than the Bush? I missed it.
What I saw was that John McCain couldn't even face Barack Obama, a man with whom he disagrees. At times he could barely conceal his rage, he so personalizes disagreement elevating anger to hate. What does this say about how he will use and manage the State Department?
Yes, let's review the history...
From the NYT:
Well, that seems quite plain. And just to be sure, Mr. Obama helpfully clarified (same source):
Now that is perfectly clear. "Without preconditions" means without preconditions, not "without full agreement to our agenda." If Mr. O had meant the latter, he had two chances to say it, and he did not.
Um, the Polish people are not under Soviet domination!
Just what the hell are "preconditions" anyway? And how will you let the other side know what those preconditions are without actually meeting them? Do you change your status on Facebook? Post to Twitter? Ask a mindnumbingly stupid Atlantic blogger to post a coded message?
Conditions that must precede some action. For example, country A must agree, in writing, to cease nuclear weapons development before the President will meet with the leader of country A. That sort of stuff.
The issue is about Presidential level meetings, not all meetings.
Wow, what an incredibly insightful and cutting piece of criticism this is! I expect that you'll certainly be in contention for a Macarthur next year!
For example, country A must agree, in writing, to cease nuclear weapons development before the President will meet with the leader of country A.
Let's say country A (or I) has officially declared on numerous occasions that it does not develop nuclear weapons nor that it has the intention to develop nuclear weapons. What kind of written declaration should there be? How many witnesses and what type of witnesses?
Do you realize how friggin' demeaning this is? Seriously, who came up with this shit, Hannah Montana?
The issue is about Presidential level meetings, not all meetings.
I fail to see the difference. Ambassadors, State Department officials, diplomats - all of them speak for the President and it's on that level that real international negotiations are handled. What you are besically saying is "we don't give you a high-profile photo-op unless you do what we demand." Once again, what the hell?
You can't be serious. Begone troll!
I can picture Obama inviting Ahmadinejad over, and then standing up to him and screaming, "No soup for you!"
Obama tried to make it seem like the argument against him was that he would meet with foreign leaders without preparation (preliminary lower level meetings and such) and defended himself with "of course I wouldn't do that". But that isn't the actual criticism. The actual criticism is "no preconditions", not "no preparation" or "no preliminaries".
When you meet at the presidential level you not only give more credibility to the person you are meeting with, you also raise expectations that you are going to get something done, and so raise the risk that you will sign some bad deal to "make progress", or "improve relations", or "resolve the problem". Normally the presidential meeting should be to sign the agreements all ready worked out, or at least mostly worked out, at lower levels. That's not just "preparation", its also getting agreement on the preconditions needed before you have a presidential level meeting. You might possibly have no preconditions of low level or indirect talks, or minimal preconditions for very high (but below presidential) level talks, but you don't have the heads of state and/or government meet until a deal is done, or all but done.
Tim,
Yes you do. For example as a sign of good will for further negotiations (which is what I imagine could/should happen with Asad). Or a sign of normalizing diplomatic relations, which is what should happen with Ahmadinejad or whoever succeeds him. Or, in your scenario, to finalize an important agreement. There are subtle but important nuances here, like whether you're meeting the other guy in his country, in your own country or for a few minutes on a neutral soil, but only one of those requires extensive preparation. Nixon, btw, was such a big deal not because he met with the Chinese leadership, but because he went to China. This whole thing with "I will not meet with X until preconditions [a,b] are met" is so ridiculous I can't even believe we're talking about this. But hey, this is unipolar world of the Bush era where the world is a high school and the US is the cool kid / bully. Luckily, those days are soon over.By the way, what exactly should talks with Iran achieve?