444 Days That ‘Jimmy-Rigged’ the Future in an Obama-nation


Comments

  1. Stalin butchered 50 million Russians and Khrushchev brutally re-enslaved Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Russian funded the Red Army Faction in the 80s in Germany which killed dozens of US soldiers.

    Does anyone fault Truman, Eisenhower, or Reagan for talking to the Soviets?

    We haven’t talked to Cuba in since the 1960s? Cuba any freer of a Castro ever since we stopped talking to them?

  2. Klute,

    When are you going to deal with Iran?

  3. Thank you Sonoran Alliance. This is the most important issue of the election

  4. Klute- I appreciate your points but let’s face facts: No former President has offered to privately meet with terrorist leaders. Jimmy Carter’s confusion about negotiation and diplomacy with appeasement helped create the quagmire we are in today.

    Arbitration and Negotiation offers diplomatic legitimacy. We cannot compare the Soviet Union to Iran or the faction of Hamas? That’s apples and oranges.

    Mr. Obama, a self-projected intellectual, may have visited all “57 states” and all but he still doesn’t seem to know what country he is in, what it stands for, nor what being the leader of the free world means. I suspect he been hitting the peace pipe again like in college. Maybe it was on that trip to Oregon–the 57th state on the Change, Hope, Peace, Love, Green, and Leafy Express.

  5. Holy Jesus, not this again. Diplomacy doesn’t mean appeasement. I’m not an Obama supporter, but I certainly am not convinced that he wants to give away the King James Bible out of the Archives to Ahmadinejad in exchange for him stopping Hezbollah.

    There’s nothing wrong with talking, and talking intelligently, then acting.

  6. Dear Josh,

    I did not know you were such a holy roller.

    We negotiate with a lot of people in our lives that are unsavory. But even still, how can you negotiate with a guy like Ahmadinejad? Your side does not even acknowledge his radical views or the American deaths he has claimed. Negotiating with him, even if he had something that we wanted, which he doesn’t would legitimate him.

    Try to answer the question without sophistry. Still waiting on Klute . . .

  7. Rightwoman,

    Actually, they have. Reagan did in the 80s. Remember Ollie North? His actions in 86 were direct negotiations with the Iranians in order to get hostages released.

    How ’bout more recently? Bush has lauded his restoration of diplomatic ties with Qadaffi in Libya? Are the dead of Pan Am flight 103 any more alive after Bush opened up relations with them – diplomatic relations that apparently have stopped Libya’s nuclear program?

    Iran is not Hamas – Iran is a sovereign nation controlling a percentage of the world’s oil supply and on the cusp of becoming the dominant regional power; Hamas is a bunch of thugs wearing ski masks. You bet your life we should have diplomatic contact with Iran.

    In the book “World War Z”, a point is made that having the mechanics in place to talk to someone is more likely to avoid the exchange of nuclear weapons, not cause them. We have relations with every nuclear power in the world, even North Korea.

    What led to our problems in Iran is the propping up of the Shah and turning a blind eye to the activities of the SAVAK, which formented the Islamic Revolution – Carter just kept with a policy that had been established for years.

  8. James,

    I’ll deal with Iran as soon as I make myself some coffee.

    But to your point, you say Ahmedinejad has nothing we want? Really? We don’t want him to stop producing nuclear weapons? We don’t want him to stop supplying weapons to AQI or the Mahdi Milia? We don’t want them to stop influencing OPEC?

    Again, Cuba is the model we should be looking at. The embargo, the lack of relations with the Castro governments… Cuba’s still as repressive as it ever was. Part of the reason why the Soviet Union fell was because there was diplomatic contacts, because Western citizens could travel to these places and talk to the every day citizen – people saw hope.

  9. How is that nuclear weapons program in Cuba going these days, anyway?

    And just where is Gitmo?

  10. Ann,

    While I appreciate the easy joke, you know that’s not a fair comparison. When the Soviets put nukes on their soil, Kennedy didn’t bomb them out – there was always that option – but gunboat diplomacy saved the day. At no time did the US and the USSR ever break off relations.

    Cuba has also never stated that it has an ambition to be an independent nuclear power.

  11. James,

    Not sure where you got the idea I’m a holy roller, unless you misunderstood my analogy. The idea that you can simply ignore someone and wish they’d go away is simply not feasible.

    As far as my side goes, not sure where you got your clue as to which side I’m on..considering I’m not on any side. I make up my own mind, and call B.S. on both sides when I see it. In my mind, this is a crap argument full of empty rhetoric and scare tactics. Its as stupid as saying don’t vote for Obama because he’s black and if he gets elected then he’s going to hang dice on the presidential limo’s rearview mirror as well as outfitting it with spinners.

    The more we ignore Iran, the worse the situation there is going to get. To completely discard the thought of diplomacy and focus only on military action is short sided and foolish.

  12. Unfair comparison, isn’t that my usual line to you? It’s absolutley a fair comparison and you made the case for it in your reply.

  13. Klute,

    Re: AQI, finally, a liberal acknowledges that Iran is supporting Al Queada (Sunni).

    I would LOOOOOOOOVVVEE for Iran to, in your words:

    1) stop producing nuclear weapons
    2) stop supplying weapons to AQI or the Mahdi Milia
    3) stop influencing OPEC

    Here’s a couple I am laying on in case you forgot:

    4) Quit threatening to close the Persian Gulf
    5) Stop Hizbollah from killing Pro-western leaders
    6) Stop Hamas from kidnapping Isreali soldiers and give up terrorism
    7) normalize relations with Israel.

    But there is nothing we can give Iran save most of the Territory east of the Mississippi that will affect those aims. I can’t believe that even you can’t see that.

    Even if the next President gets the most favorable terms from the Iranians with the most skilled diplomats in the world, what are the odds the Iranians will dissimulate? Go back on thier word and stab us in the back at more opportune time? Don’t you see that any agreement between us and this trash is just a hudna – a cease fire agreement not an armistice?

    Even you have to see the ridiculousness and indefensibility of your position.

  14. Josh, why don’t you, Obama and Klute take a trip to the Saudi funded Carter Institute and study how many times, Carter tried, tried and tried to bargain in good faith with the fundamentalists – every time they screwed him over. Carter loathes the use of force, but he assented to Desert One in frustration with tragic results.

    Compared to Ahmedninejad, the men of thirty years ago look like giants. You can’t tell me that these people will make a fool out of this nation much like Carter if the next President bargains with them.

    A war no matter who inconclusive or disastrous would be infinitely more preferrable than humiliation wrought through diplomatic accomodation with these criminals.

  15. There are many ways of “dealing with Iran”, none of which involve having the POTUS personally sit down to unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad or our military providing unconditional bombing.

    The big “I” as the answer to solve all the world’s woes is the patent Obama answer. The “US” in POTUS is for United States, of which there are 50, and whose interests should be first priority to the “POT”.

    Knowing the difference between “I” and “we” comes from experience over ambition, wisdom instead of arrogance, and a commitment to service before self.

  16. James,

    I’ve always believed Iran was waging a proxy war with the US in Iraq, much in the same way the Soviets did with Viet Nam and North Korea or the way we did with Mujahadeen – and Iran will fund whomever is winning at the time, Sunni or Shi’a. And yet, we (the US) never bombed them (the Soviets) for obvious reasons (break out of full-scale warfare). It’s the same reason Kennedy refused to back the Bay of Pigs invasion or Truman refused to attack China. You *don’t* win if a tactical war turns into a strategic one.

    4) Quit threatening to close the Persian Gulf

    They’ve been doing that since the 80s (there was even a “Far Side” cartoon about the Love Boat entering the Hormuz). Not even Reagan thought about bombing Iran over that.

    5) Stop Hizbollah from killing Pro-western leaders

    A. that’s mostly Syria B. Iran can’t make this promise – even if they stopped funding Hezbollah, there’s always the threat of a cowboy with an AK.

    Interesting note: Right now, Israel and Syria are engaging in peace talks in Istanbul. That’s right, Israel is engaging in peace talks with a nation supporting terrorism. Huh. Maybe the Israelis know something we don’t?

    6) Stop Hamas from kidnapping Isreali soldiers and give up terrorism

    Israel is engaging in diplomacy to free Gilaad Shalit and others. Especially after Israel’s “bomb Hezbollah” turned out to be a massive failure and actually reversed the gains of the Cedar Revolution.

    7) normalize relations with Israel.

    That will come through diplomacy. You do remember the Camp David Accords, yes?

    “But there is nothing we can give Iran save most of the Territory east of the Mississippi that will affect those aims. I can’t believe that even you can’t see that.”

    Absolute garbage. 1. the Arab world will not aquiesce to being led by a Persian majority. 2. the Sunni Arab world will not allow a Shi’a government to run their territory, 3. Israel will not allow it, and 4. the Iranians know it. If we hadn’t removed the Sunni firewall in Iraq (by listening to an Iranian-funded mole, Chalabi – heck of a job, Bushie), this wouldn’t even be an issue.

    “Even if the next President gets the most favorable terms from the Iranians with the most skilled diplomats in the world, what are the odds the Iranians will dissimulate?”

    Fairly good actually, considering Ahmedinejad uses the US as an ifrit (hey, I know Muslim words too!) to rile up his factions. And also considering there is a large dissident movement in Iran that would blossom if we didn’t give the current government an excuse to diminish them by rousing the rabble.

  17. Ann,

    I’m not sure how it re-enforces your opinion – I’ve never said let’s replace our guns with daisies and just hug it out with Iran. I’ve very much a Teddy Roosevelt when it comes to diplomacy – talk softly, but carry a big stick. My point about the Cuban Missle Crisis is that we didn’t shoot it out with Russians, we talked and were prepared to fight. Cuba never wanted a nuke program (other than a civillian reactor, which if I remember my Florida politics right, was cancelled through European dollars), anymore than Viet Nam or Nicaragua wanted one.

    And after close to 60 years of no diplomatic relations, all we’ve done is left the Cuban people under the yoke of a Castro – even after the Soviet Union collapsed. That is a record of failure.

  18. James,

    “A war no matter who inconclusive or disastrous would be infinitely more preferrable than humiliation wrought through diplomatic accomodation with these criminals.”

    You do know you sound like General Turgidson from “Dr. Strangelove”, right?

  19. So Klute, you’re saying you are a McCain fan since Teddy is his hero and the antithesis of Obama?

    I knew we would get to you sooner or later…. 🙂

    I will submit you probably have a very different, and understandably so, perspective on Cuba than I do.

    Hey, while I have your attention. You are such a bright guy with very well defined verbal and writing skills. Why do you use the “f-bomb* so much on your web site? Just asking, not judging.

  20. Klute,

    Nothing you have said is false, and nothing you have said supports your argument. You cannot tell me that President Ahmedinejad will honor his promises. Negotiation needs the good faith of both parties otherwise you get the Neville Chamberlain treatment.

    This is certain: the next President will have to confront Iran – do we do it on our terms or theirs.

    I wish this discussion would move me closer to your position as you have demonstrated an insight lacking in left wing FP circles. Further it is our soldiers will be called up to fight such a war, thus these young men and women will have to suffer.

    War is really ugly. Innocent people always die no matter how painstaking and laborious an effort to minimize casualties. Further complicating the situation is that a great majority of the population is more idealogically and culturally aligned to this country and its values.

    I wish I could agree with you. I want to agree with you, but the facts tell a different story.

    The Shiites fundamentalists armed with the tacit backing of the Chinese and the Russians are gaining influence in the region while blocking our influence in their country.

    You really don’t understand what we are up against. If you read GUESTS OF THE AYOTOLLAH or READING LOLITA IN TEHERAN, perhaps you would.

  21. Ann,

    “I knew we would get to you sooner or later…”

    Unfortunately, the rhythm of the Miami Sound Machine got to me first. 🙂

    About the f-bomb… It one of those things that I find fault with myself. Whenever I’m in someone else’s “house”, I try to comport myself with their rules. In my own house, I get lazy – although sometimes its out of genuine frustration.

    If it’s any consolation, whenever I do a speaking gig at one of the local high schools, I always tell the kids to avoid profanity as much as possible. Hypocrtical, but… at least I’m trying? 🙂

  22. James,

    What’s the line from the “Fallout” series? War never changes?

    The simple fact is we’re not up against a mindset like those of the Germans in WWII. I think most Iranians want to be free of the restrictions set down by the Ayatollahs. If we have to go up against Iran, we will.

    I don’t think that’s going to be necessary. If we play our cards right, we’ll wind up with a Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution in Iran, or at worst, a Romanian-styled revolution.

    Obama’s not talking about ceding the land of the Marsh Arabs to Iran or giving them Afghanistan. He’s talking about opening up sit downs. Appeasement is giving Hitler the Sudetenland or telling Saddam we’re not going to intervene in a border dispute.

    We *have* to be cautious. We *can’t* trust Ahmedinejad. But if you open up talks, maybe we find someone in the Iranian government more willing to talk. Maybe we do some chess playing and create a situation that Mahmoud embarasses himself in and creates a vacuum which is filled by someone else.

    Right now, we are told we only have one option. There is always more than one option.

  23. All I know is that I love you all and am sending you a princess float ride wave– virtually that is. CHeck out my other stuff and let me know whattya think:
    http://therightwoman.blogtownhall.com/

    A lot of it is submitted here too.

    Thanks again,

    Gayle

  24. Klute,

    I admire your honesty and self reflection. Now, if we could just get to the politics….

  25. kralmajales says

    This has to be a joke right? That was 30 YEARS AGO…THIRTY. He would have to be an freakin wizard to have not AGED A DAY. LOOK at the pictures.

    By the way, remember…this President and his moronic def. secretary established a Shiite govt. in Iraq with more in common with Iran than probably even Syria. He also completed the Shia cresent he worries so much about in Lebanon. And guess what, we dont just talk to the new Shia leaders in Iraq…we train their armies too!

    This may be the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

    Your party has NO ideas…and NO credibility.

    You will lose massively in the fall and I beg the smartest of you to leave it like I did.

  26. Anonymity says

    Kral,
    Don’t tell me you left the party. Let’s face it, you were never there in the first place.

    Klute,
    “…Kennedy refused to back the Bay of Pigs invasion…”

    Refused? More like reneged in the middle of it and sat by as our allies were slaughtered.

  27. Klute,you stated how administrations had negotiated before– like Ollie North etc. One of the huge differences is the back channel third party tactics which in fact caused North and others a bit of trouble, were seen then as over reaching diplomatic activity. Barack Obama is talking of open, front line, direct talks as if he were at a summit. He does not talk like a leader protecting his people, but a college professor speculating from his arm chair about how if we could all just get along we’d be happy.

    I see visions of Madeline Albright meeting in North Korea, and then I think of how Jimmy Carter was a pawn, full of intellecualized platitudes that got nothing for us but some dead marines, a muslim fringe government taking over one of the greatest nations and former ally, and a future mess we are in today.

    Barack Obama sounds sophomoric at best with his school boy foreign policies. He needs to go be a professor and stop thinking that the fact that he can win playing Risk with his buddies over a beer and a pizza qualifies him to the leader of the free world.

  28. Kral,

    He is the age he is. It isn’t like he was 12 at the time and he has clearly aged. This is not a new claim and not at all out of the realm of possibilities.

    Why is it so hard to believe that the same idiot who proclaimed to the world that Iran does not have the “phenomenon” of homosexuality like America, would have been so radical as to be part of that groups of thugs?

  29. Kral, Your last post proved just dripped, dripped, dripped with new ideas. Its sheer brilliance made me ashamed ever to be a republican much less an unrepentant neocon. Rest In Peace Conservatism!

    Klute, We agree that:

    1) the great majority of the Iranian people want freedom and to enjoy a lifestyle that we enjoy in the west and that their parents enjoyed under the Shah.
    2) We can’t trust Ahmedinejad.
    3) A velvet revolution would be preferable
    4) Coup’d etat within the government would be preferable
    5) We should be ready to fight a war with Iran if it comes down to that.

    I just don’t think Obama agrees with us on any of this. And on this note, you sound more like a Bush cabinet member than I do my friend. Follow up question, do you support further funding of our Human Intelligence services?

    Secondly, you really don’t understand the Islamic fundamentalism for Paul Berman’s book LIBERALISM AND TERRORISM demonstrates that Islamic fundementalism does have its roots in the fascism of the 1920’s and 30’s.

    Also what you fail to realize is that today as in World War II, nations were at war with us before we were ever at war with them. Declaring victory and walking away will not give us an honorable (not that you care about honor) or a lasting peace. No my friend, that is the road to war.

    Buddy, I really wish you were right. I don’t want to get called up. I don’t want to go to war. I don’t want anyone else to either. It just seems inevitable because the people of Iran have had plenty of opportunities to stand up to this maniac. They have instead decided to re-elect his party and in all likelihood if they haven’t already done so – him. Do we bomb him now and watch gas prices spike even further, derail a sluggish global economy, risk worldwide terrorist retaliation (including stateside Hizbollah sleeper cells) and continued regional instability? Or do we risk negotiating an evil peace where he gains a breathing space by which to further arm himself with Sino-Russian arms, enrich himself with European trade, increase his influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia and then strike us when we least expect it? What are the odds Iran will annihilate Israel if they acquire a nuclear bomb?

    It is not enough to say that “we want peace, vote for us.” We, Conservatives, we Neoconservatives want peace too. You, the Opposition have to tell the people how we are going to get peace.

    All the libs are dancing like pans around a fire that Israel is negotiating with Syria as somehow good cop-bad cop is some repudiation of the Bush policy of non-engagement. There is no evidence that the negotiations will succeed. If they do, so what? If they do, the Bush Administration take credit for them for standing tough or if they fail, they will say “See I told you so.” But let’s not “ergo post propter hoc” ourselves until we have see the turn on fifth street.

    Rightwoman, you misunderstand the Manchurian Candidate’s qualifications completely. He has lived in a foreign country went to their schools, was President of his Law Review, was a community organizer and attended a church with global reach. Madame, you and I must abase ourselves at the awe and the majesty of his qualifications – His Obamaness. His effete transcendent charisma will usher in a new era of Kumbyah – dare I say an 1000 year Reich?

  30. kralmajales says

    Anon,

    I was a member of the GOP, attended meetings, debates, and donated to candidates. I moved libertarian and learned that it didn’t work…pretty fast. Now, well I am pretty liberal.

    Ann, come on…do I support the guy? No way. Do I agree with him? No way. Do I think he is the greatest danger to our world and way of life…no way. As we seem to feel that engaging China in dialogue and other rogue nations might be more useful than cutting us off, I also think dialogue and tough stances should be a part of this action as well. None of that helped in Cuba.

    As for whether he is the same guy? That is just silly and more fear-mongering. I prefer to see him for the anti-homosexual, religious zealot that he is now.

    Last, James. Yeah…I was heated when I wrote it…as you are sometimes too. But you didn’t touch my unmistakeably correct point about Iraq, our actions resulting in Shia dominance…what this post fears the most…and how our current policies are inconsistent, harmful, and don’t work.

  31. Anon,

    Fear is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. If it is him then it presents a profile of a young rebel with a cause who was motivated by hate and anger, willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people to accommodate his desired end. The fear is for one to accept or reject. The truth is, as they say, what it is.

    If the concept is rejected, you cannot reject the truth that those individuals are somewhere, most likely in Iran, and what endeavors where in their future?

  32. kral, I like a little bare nuckle in my politics as well. But you wrote: “Your party has NO ideas…and NO credibility” that could applied to your party as well. I am waiting for that diplomatic impasse from Damascus after the Pelosi-Kucinich visits.

  33. kral, re; Shia in Iraq, the Shah of Iran was a Shiite. Too bad we don’t have anymore Shias like him. That’s right Jimmy Carter repudiated him trying to cozy up to the Shah’s ouster only to get the greatest diplomatic diss since Tamerlane used the Ottoman Emperor Bayzeid as a footstool.

    Any more libs want to debate foriegn policy? Here’s a title for your next picture Klute: “How I stopped worrying about national security and learned to appease.”

Trackbacks

  1. Car Dealer says:

    just moseyed in….

    God love google, nice stuff. Have an excellent day….

Leave a Reply