Oh Noes!

Ezra's certainly right to say that it's bizarre for George W. Bush to criticize Barack Obama on the grounds that "it'll send the wrong message" for Obama to hold a meeting with "a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs" considering that Bush does exactly that on a regular basis. Is it a good thing that the people of China and Russia and Saudi Arabia are, like the people of Cuba and Syria and Iran, ruled by dictators? Of course not. And if the lessons of history indicated that some kind of "no meetings ever" policy caused those regimes to melt and transform into wholesome democracies, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

But things don't work like that, and in the world as it is it's hardly practical to eschew all meetings with everyone whose political system you don't approve on. The question is, thus, whether or not this posture of creating a mostly arbitrary class of "bad guy" that we're going to take down with our awesome powers of snubbing accomplishes anything meaningful. Obama's contention is "no." Bush's contention is "yes" but he has absolutely nothing to show for it.

Meanwhile, I think being attacked by the president helps Obama. These kind of criticisms may carry some weight when delivered by Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but having Bush give voice to the same concerns merely underscores the extent to which Clinton and McCain are arguing from a position that's deeply continuous with the mindset of the Bush years. How many people are surveying the mess Bush has made of things and thinking "we need more of the same?"

Comments

Look. It's different.

Whatever Bush Jr. and the Republican Reaganites do, it's right and moral and good. Whatsoever doeth anyone against this, it is wrong and evil and there will be much gnashing of teeth.

Posted by El Cid | February 29, 2008 10:29 AM

History will remember us, for out timidity and laziness, almost as harshly as it remembers Bush and Cheney. That those lying gangsters weren't impeached and sent to The Hague within hours is our lasting disgrace. (How did they manage the feat of staying out of the hoosegow? By not instituting a draft. In insured that the war wouldn't matter enough to the young to rouse themselves from their iPods and such.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 29, 2008 10:32 AM

Speaking of being careful in your choice of friends:
".....we've got to be very clear on this: We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," Larry Bird said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd think this sort of issue was covered in NBA rookie orientation sessions but evidently not.

Posted by steve duncan | February 29, 2008 10:39 AM

Just making sure:

Everyone here knows the United States doesn't want democracy in Saudi Arabia. Right? Same for Egypt.

A democratic Saudi Arabia would have policies a lot more like Iran's than like the US'. A democratic Egypt would give the Palestinians in Gaza as much concrete, food, weapons as they could buy because most of the people of Egypt think the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong.

The United States wants a wholesome democracy in Iran and Syria for exactly as long as it would take to finance a US-backed political victory or coup, at which point the US-stooge would cancel elections, impose a permanent state of emergency and spend the rest of his life under US protection.

If not for Iran, and Iran's ability to fund a Shia insurgency that combined with the Sunnis would be able to overturn any US stooge there, that's what we'd see in Iraq today. That's what Bush expected to be able to see when he invaded.

But we all knew that already, right?

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 29, 2008 10:46 AM

I'm sure every Republican will beg Bush to keep quiet between now and November just as they did two years ago. And just like two years ago, he won't keep quiet and will hurt all of them, thank goodness.

Anyway, as long as Obama avoids kissing and holding hands with disgusting pig dictators, I'll be happy enough.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 29, 2008 10:54 AM

What Bush meant was, it's wrong to " meet with a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs if we don't need anything from him." He just didn't finish his sentence.

Posted by Glenn | February 29, 2008 11:01 AM

The Republican mantra: "It's wrong unless I do it".

Posted by Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:19 AM

Before the US established agreements at the highest level and normal relations with the likes of China, Vietnam, Bolshevik Russia, years of lower-level work and negotiations happened.

Nixon did not just decide on his own to fly to China, rap a la Obama with Mao, and see what good shit came out of the sweet rapport of harmony. Years of effort, 7-8, were involved, dating back to the Chicom A-Bomb and the 1966 Amur River low-level Border war with the Soviets.

Same with Soviet detente.

Bill Clinton would be the 1st to mention to young Barack that negotiations with Syria and Iran have gone on decades without enough to get a high level Summit. Bill Clinton would also say that the dominance of Cuban Exiles, as strong as the Jewish AIPAC, has blocked talks with Cuba - and Castro has done his full assholish part to make "reaching Yes!" an impossible negotiation.

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 11:30 AM

This is why I just cannot understand how McCain even has a shot at this thing. Bush's 19% approval rating is extremely low (though about 19 points too high). And Bush-lite is basically a coin toss right now for our next president?

We deserve whatever government we get. I can't believe how ill-informed Americans are, it's embarrassing. Johnny 100 Years was winning the anti-war vote in New Hampshire. Disgusting.

Posted by Tony | February 29, 2008 11:30 AM

"Before the US established agreements at the highest level and normal relations with the likes of China, Vietnam, Bolshevik Russia, years of lower-level work and negotiations happened."

Obama isn't promising to establish normal relations with Iran or Cuba or what have you. All he's said is I'll talk to people without preconditions, unlike the current foreign policy conventional wisdom which says other people have to agree with the U.S. on an issue before we'll even talk to them about that issue.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 11:55 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Before the US established agreements at the highest level and normal relations with the likes of China, Vietnam, Bolshevik Russia, years of lower-level work and negotiations happened. "
------------
I'm puzzled.

Is Chris Ford arguing that the President should defer to the great speed and efficiency of the State Department?

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 11:59 AM

Hey! To the extent that his first election to the office was fraudulent and in that he put Siegelman in jail, W himself is a tyrant who imprisons people for their political beliefs!

Posted by timothysull | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

. . . put in prison because of their political beliefs . . . how about Don Siegelman?

Posted by Paul Gottschall | February 29, 2008 12:33 PM

Several local Republicans were discussing this at the hardware store yesterday (the owner is a prominent local politician). They are mostly working their arguments between themselves so as to allow them to see McCain as different from Bush and to see Obama as the "other" threatening their lives and children. This isn't an open argument, my comments were neither appreciated nor considered despite the fact that I am a neighbor and I do business with several of them. No one should take the outcome of the campaign for granted - or expect that the world as we know it will have a lot to do with the discussion's terms.

Posted by Eric | February 29, 2008 12:40 PM

There's a legitimate point that the big players shouldn't meet until the staff people have worked things into good enough shape that high-level meetings might be worthwile. I assume Obama's smart enough to say that, of course, he understands this. As for the idea that high-level talks with bad actors reward bad behavior, if I were a candidate, I'd just say that being stuck in a room negotiating with me for several hours is hardly a "reward."

Posted by CJColucci | February 29, 2008 12:53 PM

Matt: "I think being attacked by the president helps Obama."

Just remember the line, "Senator Clinton agreed with George W. Bush on Iraq, and she agrees with him on this."

Posted by Thomas Allen | February 29, 2008 1:19 PM

You should have used the picture where Dumbya's swapping spit with the (other) bastard. Or maybe the one where they're holding hands as they rush off to a mutual wank session.

And the major image in the general election should be that humiliating man-hug McCain gave Bush - the one where it looks like he just can't get enough of Dumbya's skank on himself.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 29, 2008 1:57 PM

Well, I posted a bunch of links over at the Carpetbagger to pics of Bush with evil folks, but someone else has done a bang-up job (and included more than I did -- although I spent literally two minutes searching):

Link here.

(I am in no way affiliated with the site above -- got it from Ezra's place.)

Posted by Mark D | February 29, 2008 2:20 PM

1) What's puzzling is how the US News Media suppressed any discussion of what motivated the 911 attack -- with our support for the Saudi kleptocracy being one of three main factors.

Probably THE PRIMARY FACTOR as far as Bin Laden was concerned -- although other leaders in Al Qaeda probably hated us for the US Government's support of the dictator in Egypt.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 5:41 PM

1) What's puzzling is how the US News Media suppressed any discussion of what motivated the 911 attack -- with our support for the Saudi kleptocracy being one of three main factors.

Probably THE PRIMARY FACTOR as far as Bin Laden was concerned -- although other leaders in Al Qaeda probably hated us for the US Government's support of the dictator in Egypt.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 5:42 PM

In his 1996 Fatwa, Bin Laden described the Saudi regime and the long term disaster it is bringing down up on the Saudi people:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

----------------
"1) The intimidation and harassment suffered by the leaders of the society, the scholars, heads of tribes, merchants, academic teachers and other eminent individuals;

(2) The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;

(3) The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth-hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion, as Allah, the Exalted said: {surely- as for- those who love that scandal should circulate between the believers, they shall have a grievous chastisement in this world and in the here after} (An-Noor, 24:19).

(4) Abuse and confiscation of human rights;

(5) The financial and the economical situation of the country and the frightening future in the view of the enormous amount of debts and interest owed by the government; this is at the time when the wealth of the Ummah being wasted to satisfy personal desires of certain individuals!! while imposing more custom duties and taxes on the nation. (the prophet said about the woman who committed adultery: "She repented in such a way sufficient to bring forgiveness to a custom collector!!").,

(6) The miserable situation of the social services and infra-structure especially the water service and supply , the basic requirement of life.,

(7) The state of the ill-trained and ill-prepared army and the impotence of its commander in chief despite the incredible amount of money that has been spent on the army. The gulf war clearly exposed the situation.,

(8) Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,

(9) And as far as the foreign policy is concerned the report exposed not only how this policy has disregarded the Islamic issues and ignored the Muslims, but also how help and support were provided to the enemy against the Muslims; the cases of Gaza-Ariha and the communist in the south of Yemen are still fresh in the memory, and more can be said.

As stated by the people of knowledge, it is not a secret that to use man made law instead of the Shari'a and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten "voiders" that would strip a person from his Islamic status (turn a Muslim into a Mushrik, non believer status). The All Mighty said: {and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are the unbelievers} (Al-Ma'ida; 5:44), and {but no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find the slightest misgiving in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission} (An-Nissa; 4:65).

In spite of the fact that the report was written with soft words and very diplomatic style, reminding of Allah, giving truthful sincere advice, and despite of the importance of advice in Islam - being absolutely essential for those in charge of the people- and the large number who signed this document as well as their supporters, all of that was not an intercession for the Memorandum . Its' content was rejected and those who signed it and their sympathisers were ridiculed, prevented from travel, punished and even jailed.

Therefore it is very clear that the advocates of correction and reform movement were very keen on using peaceful means in order to protect the unity of the country and to prevent blood shed. Why is it then the regime closed all peaceful routes and pushed the people toward armed actions?!! which is the only choice left for them to implement righteousness and justice. To whose benefit does prince Sultan and prince Nayeff push the country into a civil war that will destroy everything? and why consulting those who ignites internal feuds, playing the people against each other and instigate the policemen, the sons of the nation, to abort the reform movement. While leaving in peace and security such traitors who implement the policy of the enemy in order to bleed the financial and the human resources of the Ummah, and leaving the main enemy in the area-the American Zionist alliance enjoy peace and security?!

The advisor (Zaki Badr, the Egyptian ex-minister of the interior) to prince Nayeff -minister of interior- was not acceptable even to his own country; he was sacked from his position there due to the filthy attitude and the aggression he exercised on his own people, yet he was warmly welcomed by prince Nayeff to assist in sins and aggressions. He unjustly filled the prisons with the best sons of this Ummah and caused miseries to their mothers. Does the regime want to play the civilians against their military personnel and vice versa, like what had happened in some of the neighbouring countries?!! No doubts this is the policy of the American-Israeli alliance as they are the first to benefit from this situation.

But with the grace of Allah, the majority of the nation, both civilians and military individuals are aware of the wicked plan. They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime."

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 5:53 PM

The US support for the regime in Saudi Arabia should end.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 29, 2008 7:17 PM

Matt -- I am a huge fan of your analysis, and in fact have never been moved to post in disagreement with you before. I don't exactly disagree with what you've said here, but I think by focusing on Bush's dumb, carelessly overbroad formulation, you've sidestepped the issue as it's been joined among Obama, Clinton, McCain and others over the last few months. The question has not been whether it's appropriate or wise to meet with tyrants, but rather with heads of state of "our enemies," because (i) direct presidential meetings are a boon that they should first earn by "showing progress" (i.e., doing whatever it is we want them to do), (ii) a new president's willingness to meet face to face is a sign of weakness, and so on. Bush's statement of the point so broadens the category of people with whom a president should not meet as to set up an easy straw-man proxy for the original, more difficult issue. I happen to agree with Obama's approach in any case... but it's the question of how best to conduct presidential diplomacy with "our enemies" that has become a campaign football, not "tyrants" in general.

By the way, your dad is a terrific writer and a very nice man.

Posted by Ken H | February 29, 2008 7:17 PM

The question has not been whether it's appropriate or wise to meet with tyrants, but rather with heads of state of "our enemies," because (i) direct presidential meetings are a boon that they should first earn by "showing progress" (i.e., doing whatever it is we want them to do), (ii) a new president's willingness to meet face to face is a sign of weakness, and so on. Bush's statement of the point so broadens the category of people with whom a president should not meet as to set up an easy straw-man proxy for the original, more difficult issue. I happen to agree with Obama's approach in any case... but it's the question of how best to conduct presidential diplomacy with "our enemies" that has become a campaign football, not "tyrants" in general.

Therein lies the rub. And this is EXACTLY the line of reasoning that Clinton has been using against Obama as well. And the three "enemies" that I believe she listed (she calls them rogue states not enemies but it's the same thing). The thee states I heard her list were Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. Which is simply ridiculous. Cuba is only a rogue state because aging exiles in Florida insist so. But it is no more a rogue state than a dozen other Latin American countries with repressive political histories. Venezuela is a functioning democracy with a human rights record orders of magnitude better than many so-called allies like Saudi Arabia. And Iran? I fail to see any measure by which Iran could be considered a worse state than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

I expect this sort of black and white world view from Bush but I'm really disappointed that Clinton is buying into it. I really wish someone would push her on the issue and ask her to lay out her criteria as to which foreign leaders are "acceptable" and which are not. Because she will be utterly unable to lay out any sort of rational criteria and will end up looking ridiculous. If the issue is human rights then we have absolutely no business dealing with most of the Arab states and most of the former soviet republics of central Asia, as well as China for that matter. If the issue is terrorism. Well we know most of the die-hard Al-Qaeda types are from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. If the issue is nuclear proliferation we know Pakistan is the prime culprit. If the issue is economic threats. There's China. Cuba and Venezuela aren't going to make the top 50 on any list using rational criteria. And Iran isn't going to make the top 10.

Who the hell defines who our "enemies" are anyway?

Posted by Kent | February 29, 2008 11:14 PM

"considering that Bush does exactly that on a regular basis"

What an enormous lie.

Posted by am | February 29, 2008 11:36 PM

am quotes and writes: ""considering that Bush does exactly that on a regular basis"

What an enormous lie."

Where's the lie? Dumbya does indeed meet with tyrants who imprison people for political reasons, and he does do so on a regular basis. He also meets with tyrants who torture and kill people for political reasons. Of course he's pro-torture, so that wouldn't bother him even a little bit. Didn't you see the pictures of Dumbya swapping spit with Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? How about all of those other pictures in the link provided by Mark D at 2:20PM? Who do you believe, the war criminal Dumbya Bush or your lying eyes?

The enormous lie is when people like you insist that Dumbya has been a good president. Now that's just a complete and total lie.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 29, 2008 11:59 PM

"The question has not been whether it's appropriate or wise to meet with tyrants, but rather with heads of state of "our enemies," because (i) direct presidential meetings are a boon that they should first earn by "showing progress" (i.e., doing whatever it is we want them to do), (ii) a new president's willingness to meet face to face is a sign of weakness, and so on."

No, there never was a legitimate question here. Obama made a statement, something to the effect that he would meet anyone, anywhere, anytime without preconditions. Clinton decided to spin that to mean that there would be no preparation, no preconditions, that Obama would hop a plane next week to see Kim in North Korea, and other nonsense which Obama never stated and obviously could not mean.

The worst you could accuse Obama of is making a loose statement during a campaign - a statement which was then interpreted by his enemies in ways they preferred without any direct evidence that any of their imaginings had any basis in fact.

There is no evidence anywhere that a new President being willing to meet other national leaders is any kind of weakness. That is spin, nothing more.

And the notion that "direct presidential meetings are a boon" to be earned is just another example of how the US tries to force everyone else to kowtow to its power. This is precisely the attitude that backfires against the US.

The President is just the national leader of the US. He isn't God. If I were President of Russia or Premiere of China, I wouldn't be thinking, "Gee, I need to earn the right to talk to the President by agreeing to US demands in advance." I'd be much more likely to be thinking something like, "Fuck that! The bastard can ask me to meet!" And if he did, I'd be congratulating myself on how I outwitted the US President - meanwhile, he would be outwitting me, since obviously I'm an moron for thinking he gives a shit.

Most business leaders know you get the best results by picking up the phone and calling your opposite number at your competitors rather than trying to work through your underlings. The same applies at the national level. They have a hot line to Moscow for a reason.

However, on the national level, most of these meetings aren't that significant anyway. National decisions tend not to be made strictly by the specific individual, even in dictatorships. They are influenced by others in the government, even as US presidents are. The most the leaders can do is convey an expression of the national or state consensus to each other, and the decisions that have been made and why. Beyond that, negotiations must be conducted on the basis of what the leaders know from their staff on what is possible.

You're not going to have Obama meeting Ahmadinejad and suddenly deciding there and then to stop supporting sanctions against Iran just because of something the Iranian President says. That's a fantasy.

In any event, "talking with Iran" or any other country almost automatically means the entire apparatus of State doing the talking on each side. This is what is critical to resolving issues - not whether the leaders gets to sit down face to face.

And in this, the Bush administration has been a total failure and a total liar in describing his reasons for not doing it.

So everybody needs to cut the crap about this "inappropriate willingness to talk" nonsense directed at Obama.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 1, 2008 12:21 AM

am: Please explain.

The photo above indicates MY is on target here.

Would you prefer a photo with the leadership of China?

Posted by Andruw | March 1, 2008 12:40 AM

Re: Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,

This is a bizarre complaint about Saudi Arabia, given that Saudi Arabia is just about the most extreme Islamic Law state there is. From women's (non-)rights to barbaric punishments to the fact that no religion save Islam is legal the Saudis have Shari'a in spades.

Posted by JonF | March 1, 2008 12:49 AM

JonF writes: "This is a bizarre complaint about Saudi Arabia, given that Saudi Arabia is just about the most extreme Islamic Law state there is. From women's (non-)rights to barbaric punishments to the fact that no religion save Islam is legal the Saudis have Shari'a in spades."

Saudi Arabia alone gives the lie to any notion that Dumbya & the Bushpigs care about democracy or human rights, of course. The Bush family has been gobbling royal Saudi, uh, pumps for 3 generations at the least. They'd rather (have other people) fight than switch. The stench had barely cleared at Ground Zero before Dumbya was playing public kissy-face with Abdullah.

It all makes me sick, and (like or unlike) Michelle Obama I won't be really proud of my country until the Bushpigs are stripped of power completely.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | March 1, 2008 2:35 AM