Guardian reports that the Bush administration is getting ready to establish a "US interests section" in Teheran, a kinda sorta embassy that would suggest an intention to begin engaging in serious diplomacy.
« $52 Million | Main | Farecards »
The Wages of Appeasement
17 Jul 2008 09:54 am
Comments (26)
I suppose just wishing something so hasn't proved to work so well for the Administration.
This is a major boost to Obama. It shows that small-scale negotiation is possible with Tehran and that it is the best way to avoid a nuke war. McCain refuses to admit what even the Bush administration understands.
Obama gets a major foreign policy boost from this news.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Appeasement!! Appeasement!!
Well, at least if Bu$hco installs some cronies in Tehran, it will be harder for them to bomb the hell out the the place.
El Cid, actually history shows far more cases of talking and negotiation working and preventing major escalations than otherwise.
Just a reminder to avoid making blanket statements which are wrong.
John: I was assuming that the readers here would recognize the quote from Bush Jr's speech to the Israeli Knesset. His words, not mine. Sort of a joke by not having quotes around it.
John,
I'm pretty sure El Cid was joking. This is based on previous posts of his...
It's the bonfire of the mustaches.
McCain refuses to admit what even the Bush administration understands.
Come on, it won't matter. By next week, this will have been McCain's position all along, and everyone with a ticket on the Straight Talk Express will begin rewriting history to explain what he REALLY meant when he said all that stuff.
Meanwhile, how can we trust Obama now? He used to disagree with the Bush Administration on Iran, and now he agrees? If he had been tortured by the Viet Cong, we would have a much better idea of where he stands.
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.
You are absolutely right. History teaches the futility of negotiating with regimes that practice wars of agression and torture prisoners. The Iranians have no business talking to us.
I wonder if John Bolton just had a brain aneurysm.
Is Bush so calculating that he's giving McCain an opportunity to be Not Bush? You betcha. There's a recent McCain attack on Obama where he tries to link Obama (!!!) to Bush.
If Republicans would be willing to launch a hideous war to improve their electoral chances (and they did), they'd definitely be willing to open up a phony diplomatic station.
George Bush doesn't even know who to call Neville Chamberlain anymore. He's become everything he used to hate.
The only question is will the terrorists become a regular kind of emboldened, or will they become so ultra-emboldened that we have to redefine what the word means. That is, if we'll even have the time to redefine words under the caliphate.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com
George Bush doesn't even know who to call Neville Chamberlain anymore.
That's beautiful, Matthew. I may find myself using that line over and over again.
There were two things in the Guardian article which struck me:
1. They said this was Bush trying to end with positive achievements. Is that really why he is doing this?
2. This undercuts Obama. Why?
Attention panic-mongers!
Of course, they'll just say the interest section is only in Teheran in order to send GPS coordinates to the cruise missiles...
They said this was Bush trying to end with positive achievements. Is that really why he is doing this?
If so, then it's too bad he wasn't at 30% approval for his entire eight years.
If US officials are again on the diplomatic circuit in Tehran, presumably they will have the opportunity to plant the necessary signal devices so that when we bomb Iran we can at least relive old times by hitting the Chinese embassy.
If US officials are again on the diplomatic circuit in Tehran, presumably they will have the opportunity to plant the necessary signal devices so that when we bomb Iran we can at least relive old times by hitting the Chinese embassy.
If they hit the Chinese embassy again, I'm going to be pissed. "oh it was an accident!" Yeah, right.
Will Matt tell us whether this means the Bush administration is going to bomb Tehran or not? I mean, that's still Matt's working theory of the administration's policy, despite all the evidence to the contrary. So can we get an explanation of how this all fits together?
Re Thomas
Actually, it's Richard Steven Hacks' confident prediction that the US is going to bomb Iran. I don't know that Mr. Yglesias has bought into Mr. Hacks' prediction, considering that he has labeled Mr. Hack a troll.
SLC, Matt's line is that it's an open question whether we're on the brink of an unauthorized war with Iran, and that that question is something that should be debated again and again. He also believes that the US hasn't engaged in diplomacy with Iran. So I think it's fair to say that Matt hasn't any idea what the US policy toward Iran is, and doesn't care whether his paranoia coheres.
It's amazing how quickly everyone seizes on this to comfort their cognitive dissonance over the insanity of the intent to bomb Iran.
I see this as little more than CYA for Bush and Cheney. If they've already agreed to allow Israel to initiate the strike - and if this stuff about diplomacy is true, Israel will be livid - I'd say it doesn't matter what "fake diplomacy" Bush may be engaging in.
Until Bush leaves office and there has been no attack on Iran, it's rather premature to break out the champagne.
It's also premature unless McCain is not elected AND it's ALSO premature if Obama never gets a clue that Iran is NOT going to stop its enrichment no matter what "aggressive sanctions" or "diplomacy" Obama thinks he can pull of.
Not to mention that you can always recall "diplomats".
They had UN inspectors in Iraq before Bush attacked Iraq. They were ordered out when Bush decided to attack. What's the difference between that and establishing a "pseudo-diplomatic office" full of CIA agents?
Get a grip.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists."
OK George. Just like your dad's "Read My Lips" promise.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists."
OK George. Just like your dad's "Read My Lips" promise.
Comments closed July 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.
Posted by El Cid | July 17, 2008 10:07 AM