Joe Biden Calls Bush Comments 'Bull****'

[Burgold]

Cool. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. To me, it's a simpler issue.

Should we talk or not talk? or Is the Bush policy of non-communication correct?

I wouldn't feel differently if it was Hillary or McCain who gained the White House. The question is the policy and is it the right policy?

The "who" is very important, but it isn't the issue. The "who" (damn, now I've got to go listen to Quadraphenia or something) is about who we should vote for to follow through on these policies.

[twa]

Should we talk or not talk? or Is the Bush policy of non-communication correct?

What is the use of giving them a bigger platform to spread lies?

That is all official talks would do since they have not indicated a willingness to change during unofficial talks with the US and official talks with others.

"as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

[Burgold]

That is a answer, TWA and it might be the right one. I'm of the mind that talks generally do no one harm. Now, agreements, compromises, appeasements are a different issue, but there's not a lot of harm in agreeing to meet and discussing first hand the issues and where the sides really stand outside of the rhetoric used for propaganda and public consumption.

[Bang]

Shame the guy that stood in front of a US crowd and said"No homosexuals in Iran"...regularly calls for the extinction of Israel,denies the Holocaust,claims there is No Oppression of Women in Iran

Good luck with that. :laugh:

Well, as long as Bush is promising the establishment of a Palestinian state by January, may as well go for broke!

~Bang

[twa]

Well, as long as Bush is promising the establishment of a Palestinian state by January, may as well go for broke!

~Bang

Good point :laugh:

Only way that will happen is to cut out the middlemen and impose a solution. :2cents:

[81artmonk]

Well, let's see what the pres said.

THE PRESIDENT: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Hmmm, doesn't sound like anything untruthful there. Nor does it sound directed at anyone in particular. assumptions could be made, but nothing was written in stone.

Personally, I don't see the issue with what he said. IMO he's right.

[Mad Mike]

Biden is a moron and a liar.

He also claimed bush cut a deal with Qadafi for his WMD. The reality is that Qadafi gave up his weapons with NO concessions from us the DAY AFTER Saddam was pulled from his dirt hole because he diddnt want to end up like Saddam.

Screw these whiny jerks. Where were they when Kerry had his sister in Astralia telling them they should not side with us in the war?

[Burgold]

THE PRESIDENT: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Well, if he wanted to be completely honest he should have said,

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, a Republican Senator declared, 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.'"

Then, it would not be linked to Obama. Now, it's not dishonest to call the Senator American versus Republican, both are true, but it is an intentional re-labeling.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think I saw the Golf story on page A1, but in any case, even as someone who likes to beat up on Bush occassionally... I think it was a nonstory.

I think he resolved to quit playing golf, but obviously didn't quit cold-turkey... The same can be said for Obama and his smoking. It doesn't really matter for what reasons. I think Bush had a good reason for not playing golf... We also don't know if he scheduled this golf outing a month or two earlier and was just keeping his commitment.

Anyway, non-story... Just a "distraction".

[Thiebear]

Bush met with the Palestinian president the other day and committed himself to a Palestinian state by this coming January. (6½ months.... good luck)

Is this similar? The Palestinian terror organizations receive direct support from both Syria and Iran.

~Bang

Good point.

Hamas is being offered Statehood by the person who is saying this of Carter.

Iran and Syria are bad, yet Palestine's and Saudi Arabia are fine...

As long as Israel is the 52nd state and our incredible dependence on oil is in this region we will be talking out of both sides of the mouth.

[Smoot Point Really]

Wow I didn't anticipate so much Repub crying when I started this thread, let me offer some of you:

You want to know why there is a Republican reaction to this thread?

It is because Democrats are debating on a Republican strength... The Republican base isn't vehemently opposed to and often supports ideas like:

1) Staying in Iraq until we are no longer needed.

2) Defending and/or Supporting our allies like Israel, and also the Iraqi and Afghani governments.

3) Criticizing those who want to negotiate with Terrorists and those who support them without pre-conditions.

Most independents don't have much of a problem with the above either...

It is the liberal-base of the Democratic party that keeps Senators and Congressmen in power, but helps lose the Presidency.

The Democrats should stick to their "strengths"... BTW, everyone talks about John Kerry being "Swift-Boated"... However, I remember the election turning on his "Global Test" remark. The Democrats shouldn't shoot themselves in the foot. Eventually, they will say something stupid because they have such a divided message on this topic.

[twa]

Biden offers this gem of advice ...You mean theres another choice?:laugh:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4880811&page=1

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, backed Obama’s plan to engage in unconditional talks with the Iranians. “You either talk, you go to war, or you maintain the status quo,” he explained. “What’s the alternative to talking with a country that’s building a nuclear weapon, attempting to, that, in fact, is helping kill Americans by supporting elements in Iraq that are killing Americans?”

He must not got the memo from Obama's handlers about no unconditional talks

[Smoot Point Really]

I dunno... Am I wrong to think the only real difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain believes the Iranians already know the conditions for negotiation and Obama believes we need to re-iterate those conditions?

If we deliver those conditions as "pre-conditions" through the Media or we call them "conditions" and hand them through an Ambassador, what is really gained at the end of the day? I think it's better to just call them pre-conditions and be done with it.

I can't imagine Obama would commit political suicide by thinking an Iran with Nuclear Weapons is negotiable.

[Burgold]

It might just be me, but negotiating through the media seems a really terrible strategy. You're negotiating through sound bites that you have to make palatable to all ears and can't say what you want to say while needing to maintain certain postures to satisfy or placate your own people.

More, considering that Republicans are always derriding the "media" as portraying things falsely and being enormously biased in their reporting. How could Republicans entrust sending out their diplomatic messages through those channels and having them be received as intended?

Either Republicans are lying about the objectivity and intrinsic fairness of the media or it is an incredibly flawed strategy.

[Henry]

Burgold, I posted on this thread was because I was particularly unhappy with you trying to equate Obama's public campaign pledge for face-to-face meetings with Iran to what was a signature moment in US diplomacy -- a very long, secretive, and carefully coordinated strategy in the Nixon/Kissinger opening of dialogue with China. Henry Kissinger will go down in history as one of the US's more effective statemen and Richard Nixon was uniquely qualified to be the first US president to go to Mao's China. This is because Nixon was highly regarded as a stateman himself, and had a very strong repuation as a 'hard-as-nails' neogtiator and long-term Cold Warrior. Nixon had the well-earned respect of Soviet and Chinese leadership and had passed all their tests of his resoluteness. No one doubted Nixon's strength in foreign policy, nor his willingness to make the tough decision.

So, for you to put Obama in the same class of experienced and hardened statesman such as Nixon and Kissinger -- is just plain wrong. Obama is just a junior Senator with very little foreign policy experience ... and whose biggest claim on foreign policy is that he's different and "won't make the same errors of judgement as the current foreign policy team." And Obama's toughness? ----Well, I'm dubious there too, because wasnt' Obama the one who was publicly whining about being 'picked on' too much in a recent debate?

So I reject the comparisons you were trying to make. Frankly, if there ever was an Obama face-to-face meeting with Iran, we might wind up having to compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain rather than Kissinger or Nixon.

Well, comparisons between Chamberlain, a weary 70-year-old leading a nation still bearing recent scars of the most devastating war in British history, a nation that was dealing with Germany from a position of significant military weakness, to Obama, a 47-year-old who would have the might of the history's greatest superpower behind him -- that's just plain wrong too, frankly.

And it's ok for you to make a comparison like that. You're not the President of the United States.

[Smoot Point Really]

It might just be me, but negotiating through the media seems a really terrible strategy. You're negotiating through sound bites that you have to make palatable to all ears and can't say what you want to say while needing to maintain certain postures to satisfy or placate your own people.

More, considering that Republicans are always derriding the "media" as portraying things falsely and being enormously biased in their reporting. How could Republicans entrust sending out their diplomatic messages through those channels and having them be received as intended?

Either Republicans are lying about the objectivity and intrinsic fairness of the media or it is an incredibly flawed strategy.

The point is... You've already communicated your "pre-conditions" and done it indirectly through the media. Communicating the very same points "in-person" is fruitless if they aren't willing to show interest in meeting the conditions as already identified.

[Burgold]

Do you trust the media to deliver the pre-conditions accurately and in the tone and depth you want? Seems a tough task to do in thirty second sound bites.

[Smoot Point Really]

Do you trust the media to deliver the pre-conditions accurately and in the tone and depth you want? Seems a tough task to do in thirty second sound bites.

"Through the media" doesn't mean delivered by Chris Matthews or George Stephanopolous... The President has stated this case himself through press conferences. The Iranian government has also done the same.

Essentially, they are talking... they just aren't talking directly or negotiating. I really don't see what BHO gains unless he intends to negotiate the non-negotiable.

[Burgold]

I still don't totally buy it... the way you say something to the public is very different... especially, if you keep up the public discourse of Axis of Evil. The message a company delivers to another company is very different than what they present to the public. So, if this is the way that Iran and the U.S. are speaking we are speaking in code. It's just a clumsy and inefficient way to do anything.

[Smoot Point Really]

Burgold, they have been very explicit in setting the "preconditions" for Iran... Iran has already rejected having talks with "preconditions". What exactly can be accomplished by having talks where those very same "preconditions" are put on the table, unless you want to make those conditions negotiable... What would BHO do for a perceived political "victory?"

The preconditions they are rejecting are:

1) No ability to create nuclear weapons

2) Acknowledge the Holocaust and stop talking about the destruction of Israel

3) Stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations

Which of these do you consider "negotiable?"

[twa]

Burgold do you not support our negotiations with Iran thru the UN?

What else are they good for?

One on one talks w/o basic preconditions is foolish(as even Obama now admits)

[81artmonk]

I think most here are missing the presidents point. He is telling the democrats and republicans who think that we can convince the terrorist nations and the terrorists that we are really nice people and they shouldn't kill us is not only stupid thinking but really really nieve.

I truely believe that when he has talks with these nations, it isn't to debate or strike some kind of deal, it's a let me tell you how this is going to go down kinda talk.

[Smoot Point Really]

Burgold, they have been very explicit in setting the "preconditions" for Iran... Iran has already rejected having talks with "preconditions". What exactly can be accomplished by having talks where those very same "preconditions" are put on the table, unless you want to make those conditions negotiable... What would BHO do for a perceived political "victory?"

The preconditions they are rejecting are:

1) No ability to create nuclear weapons

2) Acknowledge the Holocaust and stop talking about the destruction of Israel

3) Stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations

Which of these do you consider "negotiable?"

Burgold, I'd still like you to answer the above question if you can (sorry, i mean "would like". Came off sounding rude)... Check out what Senator Obama said on Meet the Press last year:

Obama: “Obviously There’s a Difference Between Pre-Conditions and Preparation.” Asked if he were still willing to meet without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, “I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I’d be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won’t meet with people unless they’ve already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, ‘We won’t meet with you until you’ve agreed to all the terms that we’ve laid out,’” from their perspective that’s not a negotiation, that’s not a meeting.“ [Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

Which of the 3 preconditions laid out above are negotiable? Should we really have to give up anything in order for them to agree with us on those 3 points? Isn't it enough that we will 'talk' to them if they comply with the preconditions?