<p>The man just will not fade away quietly. So today he speaks at the Israeli Knesset, celebrating the 60 year anniversary of Israel, and takes the opportunity to make a GOP political statement by way of a less than veiled reference that the Democrat (Obama) desire to “speak with” enemies (terrorists) is no different than WWII era appeasement of Nazis. And such a great setting to reference the Nazi party in any event. (Is the guy this absolutely clueless).</p>
<p>Earlier in the week he advised in an interview that he is showing his solidarity with those who have died in Iraq by giving up his golf game. Truth of the matter he injured his knee some time ago and cannot play. But, in any event, this is his big sacrifice (not unlike his comments some time ago about how “romantic” war must be).</p>
<p>If this was all in a movie, no one would believe it possible.</p>
<p>President Bush is right, you are wrong. When a President meets with another leader, it creates the risk that the President is legitimizing that leader. No US President should meet with the the Iranian leader, or Syrian leader or even worse, Hamas. Contrary to your assertion, Obama is simply exposing how na</p>
<p>Ignoring the enemy won’t make them go away. If we are willing to allow people like the president of Iran (I won’t even try to spell his name) to come to our country and talk in our colleges, then we need to keep the lines of communication open even with those that despise us the most. The best way to keep from fighting them over here and having to send our people over there, is to talk to them. </p>
<p>Hamas now, Arafat before that. Yes, they don’t want Israel to exist. Ignoring that won’t make it stop happening.</p>
<p>President Bush is an embarrassment to our country on the world stage. The disaster of the last 8 years had destroyed a generation’s worth of respect that American once held around the world. </p>
<p>Earlier this week it was the ‘to show empathy for our troops I don’t play golf’ comment and now this… </p>
<p>Those comments sort of fit right in with the typical present-day Republican playbook of just choosing to ignore the really tough problems rather than tackling them head-on (e.g. like the mess that is our nation’s healthcare system).</p>
<p>I agree. But what happens when both leaders are illegitimate…? And no, I am not referring to election fraud, just the fact that all politics are illegitimate.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, the US cannot ignore governments of countries it does not get along with (such as those in Syria, Iran or Palestian) and expect the problems that cause the rift to just resolve themselves. Chosing not to sit at the table with the leaders of those countries/nations only hurts the process. And since when is listening to someone the same as legitimizing them? And comparing anybody to Hitler is just plain wrong. Hitler butchered millions of civilians. You will be hard-pressed to find any such person in the Middle East today. </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for Syria (I am Lebanese after all) or Iran. I definitely have no love for Palestinians. My family was held at gun point by Palestinians in our own home in Beirut back in 1975. Luckily, I was too young to remember that ordeal, but had my father not been a high level banker at a major Jordanian bank, we would have been killed, just like our neighbors. That’s how Palestinians repaid the Lebanese for housing them for decades when noone else would.</p>
<p>But personal feelings aside, the governments of those countries/nations aren’t going to just disapear. Constructive dialogue is the only way forward. Strength of arms will not accomplish anything and will do more harm than good. Sitting at the table does not mean legitimatization or appeasement of those government, but it is a postive start.</p>
<p>Secy’s Gates and Rice have both stated publically that there are good reasons to open talks with Iran yet when Obama says the same thing Repugs go ballistic. And hasnt the Bush administration participated in diplomatic talks with NKorea???</p>
<p>I tend to agree that Hammas is another matter insofar as they are not a recognized government which render diplomatic talks meaningless. However continues talks with the Palestinian Authority is important and I give the Bush admin credit for continuing talks with them.</p>
<p>Olbermann’s Special Comment about Bush- prior to the Knesset remarks-
Obama responds today to the comments-thank you Bush for allowing Obama to make it focus now-
I assume Bush does not write his own speeches- does he?</p>
<p>The Bush administration policy of not negotiating with terrorists hasn’t worked. Even the Bush administration seems to recognize that fact, as it has engaged in limited talks with Syria and Iran over the past two years. The administration has also negotiated with North Korea and Libya, both state sponsors of terror.</p>
<p>It appears to me that there’s a major disconnect in what the Bush administration says and what it does.</p>
<p>The disaster of the last 8 years had destroyed a generation’s worth of respect that American once held around the world. "</p>
<p>We were pretty unpopular before Iraq.</p>
<p>"The Bush administration policy of not negotiating with terrorists hasn’t worked. "</p>
<p>Not being attacked works for me. I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the war in Iraq, particularly in the manner waged, but it galls me greatly that so many people forget on a regular basis that we were declared war and that happens sometimes. Iran has made it clear since the 1970s that that regime is our enemy. There is no way that we can resolve that unilaterally.</p>
<p>southjerseychessmom - man oh man… I saw that response when he did it, and had to go back and watch it on the msnbc news site. You know what I kept thinking… if this were a black man, standing in a pulpit making this speech (and of course trying to tie it into scripture) he would have been ostracized for those remarks. To say it was powerful is minimizing it.</p>
<p>I am not saying we should ignore enemy nations. We have a State Department whose sole purpose is to speak with anyone who will listen, including enemies. I’m saying that the President of the United Station should not meet with terrorist leaders or terrorist nations because it has the effect of legitimizing those leaders in the eyes of their populations. It creates the appearance of equality between those leaders and the President of the United States when, in fact, we should be doing everything possible to isolate those leaders.</p>
<p>Alexander, what do you think of the current events in Lebanon?</p>
<p>Difference is that Carter, having operated a torture school in Fort Benning, Georgia, and having sold torture equipment to the Shah, and (together with Mossad) having trained the Iranians in torture techniques, and having had U.S. military operatives overseeing the torture itself, went on Iranian national tv and toasted the Shah for the latter’s commitment to human rights. That’s what directly led to the overthrow of the Shah and the fifth most powerful military in the history of the world, backed by the most powerful military in the history of the world, without the firing of a single shot.</p>
<p>As to the Iranians being the U.S. enemy, well with the Carter history, plus the U.S. sanctioning of the use of chemical weapons against them (the Rumsfeld handshake), and the death of 500,000 as a result of a U.S.-backed military invasion by Iraq, several failed coup attempts, etc., I suspect any country would find the U.S. somewhat suspect, and with very good reason.</p>
<p>But as regards 9/11 - Iran was the first country in the world to hold a pro-U.S. commemoration of the events.</p>