Bush In ‘07: ‘Talking Is Not The Problem, We Can Talk To Iran’
Bush In ‘07: ‘Talking Is Not The Problem, We Can Talk To Iran’
In a speech before the Israeli Knesset last month, President Bush sparked controversy when he attacked those who would “negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Bush said “we have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement.”
CNN reported at the time that “White House aides” said that Bush was referring to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and other Democrats who have “publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.” Watch it:
Apparently, Bush too once thought it was “ok” to engage in negotiations with Iran. In his new book, War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq, NBC News correspondent Richard Engel provides excerpts of an interview he conducted with President Bush last year, in which Bush said “we can talk to Iran“:
We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much.
Like his Secretary of Defense, it’s clear that President Bush once understood that the mere act of talking is not “appeasement.” But now that it’s political season, Bush seems more interested in taking partisan potshots than approaching policy seriously.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
damn the internets for keeping track of things like that!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pmOh, so we CAN talk to Iran? It’s not a problem?
So why is it that back in 2003, when Iranian diplomats offered to give up all their nuclear ambitions and recognize Israel and start a long-term dialogue with the United States, you told them, diplomatically, to go and screw themselves?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pmBush: “We can talk to Iran”.
APPEASER!
snark on
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pmI’m sure we have been talking to them on the state department level. That’s not the same as the President talking directly to Ahmedinejad.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pmWe can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But…
That’s a big old “but,” Matt. He seems to be taking back his words with that “but.” I’m not so sure he was saying he was willing to talk to Iran.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pmWe can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much.
It didn’t get much because nobody believes Bush is capable of negotiating in good faith. That’s what happens when you invade sovereign nations on false pretexts or when you turn a blind eye to some countries nuclear weapons programs while accusing others of being part of an “axis of evil.”
Bush is like the playground bully who taunts the weak kid until he has no choice but to fight back and then beats him up for attacking him.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pmVA Voter Says:
I’m sure we have been talking to them on the state department level. That’s not the same as the President talking directly to Ahmedinejad.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You’re sure, huh? Well, that settles that!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pmBy moving ahead with peace talks with Syria and the expansion of West Bank settlements over just the past two weks, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has already dealt President Bush a double-blow. before their meeting in Washington tomorrow.
For the details, see:
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm“Olmert Deals Bush Double Defeats on Syria, Settlements.”
“You people are full of hate!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAERARRRHRHRHR!”
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm~VA Vote, June 3, 2008
VA Voter Says:
I’m sure we have been talking to them on the state department level. That’s not the same as the President talking directly to Ahmedinejad.
I’d like to hear the arguement against talking (not appeasing, or giving anything away) with any nation. We talked with USSR, and they had 2-3 thousand nukes pointed at us and our friends. We have talked with China many times, and they are arguably our worst enemies on the planet due to their philosophy, size, and economic potential to do us harm. We talked to Saddam when it was necessary (remember the picture of Rumsfeld shaing Saddams hand?). Why can we not talk to another nation?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pmTHere are so many things wrong with Bush’s way of thinking, but one of them is demonstrated in this little nugget of intellectual taffy:
“…as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
That’s how Bush approaches every damn issue: he’s right, and everyone who doesn’t agree with him is wrong. Bipartisanship, to Bush, is convincing all those others that he was right “all along”.
There’s no consideration of complexities, no consideration of compromise in pursuit of larger goals.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pmWith this criminal president it is all political attacks 24/7, not a divider my ass.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pmThis issue isn’t our country talking to another. It’s about the president talking directly to another head of state that with no preconditions.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pmNo it doesn’t. Next.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pmMust be nice to have a direct line on the thoughts that are unexpressed in the President’s words.
No, scratch that — it would be a horror show. But it makes sense that R-2 has such a line. Explains a lot about the things he posts here.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pmVA Voter Says:
This issue isn’t our country talking to another. It’s about the president talking directly to another head of state that with no preconditions.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
No it isn’t.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pmAre you willing to drill for oil in the US?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pmVA Voter Says:
That’s not the same as the President talking directly to Ahmedinejad.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
______
If you mean this President talking to Ahmedinejad, yes. That would be about as productive as a Three Stooges episode, and almost as intellectually stimulating.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pmWe’ll give you a chance to explain why “the president talking directly to another head of state that with no preconditions” would be so bad.
Do you have that little confidence in whoever our president is, that you figure he’ll get taken to the cleaners if he talks directly to someone “with no preconditions”?
What’s the real danger here that makes such a meeting so dangerous to our interests?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pmrogers Says:
hmmm..sounds like he’s saying “we can talk to iran, but not as long as they’re persuing nuclear weapons”.
The question is if this really contradicts with his current stance, which doesn’t seem like it, unless there’s a fuller context of these words.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
______
There is a fuller context of those words, which is that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, and they weren’t back when Bush made that statement. So it does indeed contradict his current stance.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pmOf course. But what does that have to do with the discussion?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pmWe developed the nukes. We gave the technology to other nations. We have nuked another country. We let the genie out of the bottle. Who are we to demand that another country not have what we ourselves have developed, sold, and used? I know for the jingo ‘real’ American, what we say goes, but that is not possible anymore. We cannot stomp our feet and get what we want any longer. That is why we need smarter Presidents, not the ‘C’ student who is currently squatting in our WH.
Today’s world is complicated and nuance is necessary to defend our wants and needs, but also have an ear toward compromise when and where it is necessary. The days of us just ’saying so’ are over. That was the bully approach and it worked for a while. It can work no longer.
We are not the ‘keeper of the keys’ any longer. That makes the right side furious.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pmIs this some sort of weird reich-wing game? Ask a completely off-topic question as a response?
I’ll play play along.
How come herr dubyah and the reich-wing are not outraged over the ~$10 billion U.S. dollars that were lost when sent to Iraq?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pmMr. President, remember:
Coherent phrases.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pmApparently Bush (or his mini-me McBush) have never heard the old saying “It is better to appear foolish and remain silent than it is to speak and remove all doubt”.
JT
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pmUltimate Anonymity
R-2, don’t try to imitate real arguments of any kind of subtlety. You’ll only hurt yourself.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pmNow, the real hard question: What’s wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons?
I mean, the whole nuke club is famous for its human rights’ systematic violations. What’s wrong with one more?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pmVA Voter Says:
This issue isn’t our country talking to another. It’s about the president talking directly to another head of state that with no preconditions.
Here, let me talk in your language (take your pick):
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pmI reject your premise.
So.
The president is the decider. He or she should decide.
Diplomacy, bring it on.
If you don’t think an American President has the capability
of talking to another leader, then you are unpatriotic.
For some reason when our Neocons talk to an Israeli/AIPAC crowd they REALLY like to jazz up the aggressive rhetoric.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pmAre you willing to drill for oil in the US?
And do you think radachio is a bit strong?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:59 pmHow about hot dogs? Mustard? Ketchup? Both?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pmOf course talking is not the problem because any real talk will not happen. All you need to do is to give the public the impression that diplomacy/talking has “failed” and then say “see, it didn’t work. We need to act”. Of course it helps if you spice it up a bit by using peoples own emotions against themselves. Boo! They could nuke us tomorrow. “Noble” neocon lies.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pmrogers Says:
“We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch.much“.
hmmm..sounds like he’s saying “we can talk to iran, but not as long as they’re persuing nuclear weapons”.
Is English your second language?
Bush said “Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen.” He made absolutely no connection between that and a willingness to talk to them. There is no “not as long as” except in your imagination.
He said “we can talk to them,” and he said, “I won’t let them have nuclear weapons.” Two distinct and separate statements with no correlation.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pmVA Voter,
There’s been drilling for oil in the US for over 100 years now. Is there some connection between your oil fixation and Bush’s flip flopping?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pmWhat Bush really means is that HE can talk to Iran, but if a Democrat does it (particularly a Democratic president), it’s “appeasement”.
The neocons don’t even TRY to hide their double-standards anymore.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pmFor Bush to talk to Iran, one would think that the first thing Bush would have to do is learn to talk.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pmShhhhhhhh, don’t let facts and reality mess up her rant.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pmJuan C. Says:
Now, the real hard question: What’s wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons?
I mean, the whole nuke club is famous for its human rights’ systematic violations. What’s wrong with one more?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
_______
Well, besides the fact that Iran has far more urgent economic concerns such as an 11% offical unemployment rate, massive external debt, chronic budget deficits due to an inherently unsustainable subsidy regime, a terribly undiversified industrial sector, and an ongoing brain drain of highly-educated professionals to Europe and North America, not much.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pmBush said “we can talk to Iran“
Who exactly is this “we” you are referring to , dipshit ?
You believe anyone wants to sit there and listen to you butchering the English language with that smug , stupid look on your simian-like face , like you believe you actually know something , when truth be told , you know less than a pet rock does ?
Shut the hell up already , you criminal ………..
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmBushitCo MO:
Agree to all of our pre-negotiation demands, and we’ll then sit down and talk about how your concessions to our demands can be negotiated such that we get what we want.
Oh? You wanted stuff too? No.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pmNot only does Bush not want Iran to have nukular weapons, he doesn’t even want them to have the knowledge of how to build them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pmWho are the brain police?
Bush In ‘07: ‘Talking Is Not The Problem…’
Well no, talking is not a problem for a person of average intelligence. George, say “nuclear”.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pmTalking has never been the problem for the Bush Presidency. The problem has always been LISTENING!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm.
Oh but Hier Bush, isn’t your talk on the cheep?
.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am