John McSame Out of Touch Once Again
By: Lowell
Published On: 6/2/2008 8:24:09 AM
According to Gallup:
Bottom Line
McCain may eventually persuade more Americans that there is nothing for the president of the United States to discuss with hostile foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that to do so only undermines U.S. efforts to destabilize such regimes.
However, for now, whether it's the leader of an "enemy" country, generally, or the president of Iran, specifically, Americans think it's a good idea for the president of the United States to meet directly with the nation's adversaries.
And, Gallup notes, "[Barack] Obama is the only one of the three [candidates] who has said he would personally meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela as president, and he recently defended his position by saying 'strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.'"
Verrry interesting.
Comments
So there was no mention (Alter of Freedom - 6/2/2008 8:36:23 AM)
of "preconditions" in the question posed to responders. I think most Independents and Republicans are in favor of those as a premise before having talks. I think this is a significant distinction.
This was a general question. (Lowell - 6/2/2008 8:40:55 AM)
It would be interesting to see the question asked the way you suggest as well.
The anti-talk position (Teddy - 6/2/2008 9:35:50 AM)
is that talking with, say, Iran's President, would give him a boost, increase his credibility at a time when we actually have him on the run (so say Republicans). While there is something to be said for this point of view (why give your opponent the prestige of talks while he's going down for the third time?) it basically ignores just how meetings between heads of state are usually arranged and conducted: the two top dogs never meet cold turkey, that is, they don't get together until underlings have fully discussed points of interest and wrangled everything out beforehand, then the top dogs get together and there is no embarrassing contretemps because all has been negotiated beforehand.
As for Iran, it's well known that Ahmadinejad is largely despised by his own people; if we give the crazy coot a few more months, it's possible the religious leaders who basically run the country will seek to replace him anyway (or tell him to calm down--- he's not the real top dog in Iran in reality)... unless Bush, who is equally despised in his own country, decides to attack Iran, in which case the Iranians naturally will rally behind Ahmadinejad. So, I agree, the question of talking with foreign "enemy leaders" is not quite so simple as it sounds.
By the way (Alter of Freedom - 6/2/2008 1:06:26 PM)
This may sound crazy but has anyone read anything about Pat Buchanon new book. I plan to pick up Webbs book and maybe Pats for my dad now 85 and a WWII veteran and though his new book might be a good selection. Anyone read it or know anything. All politics aside on this one, just interested about the book about Churchill and WWII.