Diplomacy is not appeasement

Since I keep referencing it, but I haven't actually stated my position on it, I figured I should probably weigh in on yesterday's controversial statement by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.

Now, let me begin by pointing out that I myself have made the "appeasement" argument before. Specifically, in response to posters that were plastered around USC's campus in the immediate wake of 9/11 by anti-war activists (against the Afghanistan war, mind you), which stated "WAR IS ALSO TERRORISM," I made some rebuttal signs that stated, "APPEASEMENT IS ALSO SURRENDER." When I chose those words, I was responding to the then-common far-left credo that our reaction to 9/11 should involve withdrawing from the Middle East, closing our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. -- in other words, making specific, substantive concessions to Al Qaeda's demands.

Similarly, in 2005, I wrote on the blog that we should not withdraw from Iraq simply because the terrorists want us to:

The Islamist radicals don’t just want us out of their backyards — they want to take over ours. Just like we were foolish to ignore Hitler’s long-term goals for “Greater Germany” and pretend that he would be satisfied with a few incremental concessions here and there, we are foolish to ignore the Islamists’ long-term goal of a worldwide Islamic state.

Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop them — it would not even slow them down. On the contrary, it would encourage them, because it would show them that they can convince us to change our policies by terrorizing us. It would give them reason to hope that, with a few more attacks and a few more surrenders, maybe they really will be able to see the Islamic flag flying over the whole world. We must not feed that fantasy.

That’s not to say the Iraq war is necessarily justified — that’s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing. Appeasement is not the answer.

Again, in raising the specter of "appeasement" and World War II, I was addressing a specific substantive concession that I believed we should not make, at least not for the reason stated. Now, you can argue the merits of my point, but it is at least within the realm of rationality to claim that such an action would indeed be "appeasement."

President Bush's comment, by contrast, is not within the realm of rationality. He is claiming that the mere act of sitting down and negotiating with an enemy is tantamount to "appeasement." That is absolutely absurd. Bush needs to look up a dictionary definition of the damn word he's talking about. American Heritage defines "appeasement" as "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Concessions. Not negotiations. In no version of reality is the mere act of negotiating "appeasement."

Now, it's perfectly fair to debate whether Obama's stated willingness to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I'm not at all sure it is, and my uncertainty on that point is one reason (among many) that I'm undecided between Obama and McCain. The mere act of engaging in negotiations does have certain potential negative consequences, particularly when you're the world's unipolar power -- it tends to bestow a certain veneer of legitimacy to the other side, it can be a propaganda coup, etc. These factors need to be considered, and weighed against the potential positive consequences. That is an important debate to have.

But regardless of where you come down in that debate, calling the simple act of negotiating "appeasement" is clearly incorrect. It's not "appeasement" unless you concede something. Period.

If you want to argue that merely negotiating with one's enemies is itself inherently a "concession," then what do you make of the many times throughout our history that U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have met with our enemies, sometimes with great success? Remember "only Nixon can go to China"? How about Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev, which helped end the Cold War? (Hat tip: David K.) Were those revered Republican presidents "appeasing" China and Russia, merely by meeting with them? Or does the substance of the negotiations determine whether they engaged in "appeasement"?

The answer is head-smackingly obvious, to the point that anyone who responds incorrectly is either an idiot or a liar. It is substantive concessions that matter. Thus, for instance, it is fair to argue -- not necessarily correct, but plausibly arguable -- that President Clinton "appeased" North Korea by essentially paying them off to halt (or pretend to halt) their nuclear ambitions. It is not, however, fair to argue that a President Obama would inherently be "appeasing" them merely by re-opening direct talks. You can't make any kind of judgment on the issue of "appeasement" without getting into the substance of the potential talks.

The last time I checked, neither Barack Obama nor any other major Democratic figure is promising any specific substantive concessions to Iran, nor to any other "terrorists [or] radicals." Bush himself actually acknowledged this point, unintentionally no doubt, when he mockingly described the Dems' position as a belief that "some ingenious argument will persuade [the terrorists and radicals] they have been wrong all along." If that were really the Dems' goal, as Bush asserts, then it would be foolish and naive, but it would not be "appeasement." Even if we credit Bush's own straw-man version of the Democrats' position, he's still wrong. Trying to convince someone they're wrong is not the same thing as "appeasing" them!

Of course, in reality, the goals of diplomacy are varied and complex, and again, we can and should debate what those goals should be, whether direct negotiation is worth the costs, etc. But dismissing the whole project as, by its very nature, "appeasement," is simply a lie.

Nor is this just some minor semantic debate. The word "appeasement" has a very specific and loaded historical meaning in geopolitical discourse, as Bush knows perfectly well. He made this explicit with his reference to Hitler, but he didn't need to. Everybody knows, when you're talking about "appeasement," that you're referring to Neville Chamberlain and his decision to give Hitler the Sudetenland, in hopes of achieving "peace in our time." That foolish action was, of course, a textbook case of "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." That was appeasement.

But the mere fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler wasn't "appeasement"! What made it "appeasement" is what he did at those talks: he made a concession that he shouldn't have made. Bush has offered no evidence, nor even an argument, that the Democrats would follow the same course as Chamberlain in that regard. He therefore has no business invoking Chamberlain and Hitler to make his point.

What's really sad about this whole kerfuffle is that, as I said, there is actually a very serious and important issue that underlies all this bulls**t and malarkey. But now that's all become obscured by Bush's despicable rhetoric and the Democrats' justifiably angry rebuttals. Basically, what's now happening to our political discourse on the important issue of how we should approach diplomacy with our enemies is precisely what happens on the Internet whenever somebody breaks Godwin's Law and inappropriately invokes Hitler. Our president yesterday became a glorified message-board troll.

One other point: I don't personally get too riled up about the whole "politics stops at the water's edge" thing. I'm not saying it isn't a good principle, necessarily, but it's just not something that personally makes my blood boil. However, it is something that Republicans and conservatives tend to get very worked up over. God forbid a liberal public figure should ever say anything critical of our foreign policy overseas! Any time they do so, even arguably, the right wing predictably erupts in a paroxysm of rage. For heaven's sake, Natalie Manies of the Dixie Chicks was pilloried for the fact that she dared speak ill of President Bush in England, and she's a freakin' singer. And I know there are examples of even more righteous outrage when it's an actual Democratic politician who does this, though I can't remember details off hand. The point is, this is very much a sore spot on the Right.

So, against that backdrop, it is totally hypocritical for anyone who has ever invoked the "politics stops at the water's edge" principle to in any way condone Bush's remarks yesterday. He went before the legislature of a foreign nation and, acting in his capacity as head of state, made a clearly political argument designed to attack the other party and its presumptive nominee. (And don't even start with the "he wasn't referring to Obama" nonsense, or the "Obama doth protest too much" absurdity. Just don't. That's beyond Hillaryesque in its disregard for the truth. Of course he was talking about Obama, you nitwits. And acknowledging that obvious fact in no way acknowledges the truth of the criticism. Go back to third grade art class and rejoin the discussion when you have something meaningful to contribute.) As such, he has specifically validated the practice of taking our internal political debates overseas, in the most ostentatious way imaginable. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't you dare ever criticize any Democrat or liberal ever again for doing the same thing in reverse.

Comments

[Nameless One]

Nixon met with Mao
Nixon met with Brezhnev
Ford met with Brezhnev
Ford met with Mao
Reagan met with Zhao
Reagan met with Gorbachav

Not to mention the meetings senior Republican officials have had with Saddaam Hussein, Libya, and North Korea.

Guess they were all traitors and appeasers right?

[franklinstein]

Please tell me how anyone, with any sense at all, can listen to or read the transcript of Bush's speech and take away that he was attacking Obama, or any democrat? Please explain to me what was so different in that speech from what Bush has been saying for 7 years? My god, what is wrong with you people? Are you really that self absorbed that you trully believe it is always about you? Look at how the american media is portraying the speech compared to the rest of the world media (the ones you always seem to be so concerned with). The Messiah decided to make this an issue and the american press are sucking it up. And now a press conference? Unbelievable. What is the saying about protesting too much?

[copndor]

"President Bush's comment, by contrast, is not within the realm of rationality. He is claiming that the mere act of sitting down and negotiating with an enemy is tantamount to "appeasement." That is absolutely absurd. Bush needs to look up a dictionary definition of the damn word he's talking about. American Heritage defines "appeasement" as "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Concessions. Not negotiations. In no version of reality is the mere act of negotiating "appeasement.""

Chris Matthews made this exact point in what is probably the funniest rejection of a talking head that I've ever seen:
Matthews Explains Appeasement

[I R A Darth Aggie]

While diplomacy is not appeasement, conducting diplomacy with folks who have absolutely no reason to negotiate in good faith - and have a history of negotiating in bad faith - is a grand waste of time.

What does Obama think his sitting down with Ahmadinejad is going to accomplish?

[Aaron]

I think I agree with Kevin Drum. The "water's edge" thing is a bit of an anachronism.

In other news, franklinstein is almost finished with a lovely popsicle-stick sculpture.

[yea]

i wonder if this latest gem of a speech from bush will drop his approval rating below 25%.

mccain has to absolutely be cringing everytmie bush opens his mouth. mccain attempts a reasonable speech outlining his first term and instead all the attention is now focused on bush's (and in turn republican's and mcacin's) disaster of a foreign policy. obama must be sitting back and loving this.

[Brendan Loy]

I hesitate to dignify franklinstein's comment with a response (and I think Aaron already summed things up pretty well -- heh), but I just want to offer this link for everyone's edification:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/About_Obama.html

Really, though, anyone who isn't blind, deaf and dumb... oh, nevermind. *sigh*

[yea]

you can say one thing about obama, hes not afraid to fight back. nice quote that really only demonstrates that he doesn't back down from this kind of stuff.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place, and that is a debate that I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said in a campaign speech in South Dakota.

[Joe Mama]

It is not, however, fair to argue that a President Obama would inherently be "appeasing" them merely by re-opening direct talks. You can't make any kind of judgment on the issue of "appeasement" without getting into the substance of the potential talks.

Very well. What exactly would Obama have to say to Ahmadinejad?

(crickets)

Maybe they can talk about how useful the last decade or so of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and countless European countries have been regarding slowing down nuclear proliferation and Iran's sponsorship of terrrorism. That would take up a good 5 seconds or so, at which point Ahmadinejad could elaborate on exactly how he plans to go about turning Israel into a "corpse," how long he wants it to "stink," etc, and then he and Obama could fill the rest of the day with a who-thinks-Bush-sucks-worse contest.

Okay, seriously though . . . what would President Obama have to say to Iran? He's got sticks and carrots (or some combination thereof), right? He's not going to brandish any more sticks then Bush already has, so that leaves carrots. What carrots would Obama likely offer? The smart money is on Obama offering to force Israel to make further concessions to Hamas or Hezbollah, in return for God only knows what (not that it matters, since Israel's opponents' history of delivering the quo isn't very good). Is it any wonder that Bush's "egregious," "criminal", "irrational" speech was met with thunderous applause in the Knesset?

Bush's use of the word "appeasement" was incorrect, but if you substitute "dopey wishful thinking," his statement is exactly right. I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it, though (cue David's idiotic "you crazy right wingers think Bush can do no wrong" rant, which we can all type out verbatim by now), because Bush has been called any number of things far worse than "appeaser" (e.g., warmonger) by most those banging their spoons on their highchairs about this speech, and far be it from me to second guess the way he chooses to defend himself (which he does all too infrequently).

[John Mccain on Hamas a few years ago]

They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Define "deal with them."

[George dubbya Bush]

I believe in appeasement. If you take my recent Israel remarks and combine them with my negotiations with North Korea and Libya there is no other logical conclusion that can be reached.

[Brendan]

Joe Mama, since you can acknowledge that "Bush's use of the word 'appeasement' was incorrect," surely you can take that to the next level, and acknowledge that he was not "incorrect" in the sense that he "misspoke," but rather he was "incorrect" in the sense that he deliberately used an incorrect term, and did so for a very specific reason: to explicitly associate his opponents with those who appeased Hitler, even though the logic underlying that association is, in your words, "incorrect."

And you think this isn't a big deal?

This sort of nonsense from Bush is severely hampering our ability to have a serious, adult discussion about this important issue -- the very sort of discussion you're trying to promote by asking what Obama would say, what negotiations would yield, etc. Bush is actively, deliberately undermining the necessary democratic discussion that needs to take place on that point, because he'd rather violate Godwin's Law for no good reason (well, no good logical reason; there are plenty of good political reasons) than have an honest discussion.

The left-wingers who routinely "call[] [Bush] any number of things far worse than 'appeaser'" are, of course, also hampering our ability to have such a discussion. But how is that any justification for Bush deliberately, purposely, calculatingly making things worse, all to score cheap political points?

You say, "I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it." I say, why the hell not? It's an absolute outrage, an utter disgrace, for the President of the United States to be playing these sorts of rhetorical/political games with our national security -- which you've conceded that he's doing by admitting that his argument is "incorrect" (unless you think it was an honest mistake, which defies all reason).

[copndor]

I think for living through this presidency, I deserve some kind of appeasement, maybe like half of the Czech Republic, or something.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Bush keeps comparing Ahmadinejihad to Hitler and equating Iran's nuclear ambitions to the Holocaust. If Bush REALLY felt this way and wasn't just trying to score political points, wouldn't he order an air strike on Iran's facilities ASAP? Wouldn't he have a moral imperative to do so, if he REALLY believed what he says?

[Joe Mama]

Why the hell am I not bent out of shape over this? Because, Brendan, "these sorts of rhetorical/political games with our national security" have been played to the hilt long before this speech by liberals and Democrats who incessantly shriek that Bush "lied to get us into a war" that was "all about oil," i.e., that the President not only doesn't mind, but would prefer having U.S. soldiers die if it would line his pockets (exactly how that would happen is never clear). Next to that, being called an "appeaser" is pretty tame. I guess I'm just so used to "these sorts of rhetorical/political games with our national security" by now.

[Joe Mama]

Also, I never said or implied that I thought Bush's use of the word "appeasement" was an "honest mistake," so you can stop barking up that tree right now.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, there are some key differences between the criticism of Bush and criticism of Obama

First, people criticize Bush for things he has ACTUALLY done, where as they are criticizing Obama for things they think he might possibly do in the future.

Second, the outlandish "War is all about oil" stuff you hear is coming from the far left. There are plenty of us who think that Bush has been making colossal blunders that dont' have to ascribe such conspiratorial motives to his actions. We don't even need to examine the motives at all to see that the actions in and of themselves are bad. I am willing to concede that Bush may have had, in fact, the best of intentions when he decided we need to invade Iraq, that still doesn't mean I think it was a bright move.

Meanwhile, this outrageous criticism of Obama isn't coming from the right wing fringe, its coming from the President of the United States. Unless you are now conceding that the President is of the same clueless classification as the left wing conspiracy theorists then even you should be able to comprehend why this is a big deal.

Oh, and in the context of calling Obama (indirectly or not) an appeaser on the level of Chamberlin, the man largely responsible for allowing Hitler to become the threat that he was, yes I'd say thats far worse than what Bush has been called.

[Marty West]

David K -

How is saying the war is about oil "outlandish"?

[Brendan]

Joe Mama, I never accused you of saying it was an "honest mistake" -- that was a pre-emptive rebuttal, lest you be tempted to say such a thing.

As for your explanation of why you aren't bent out of shape, I find it incredibly weak. So, because many of Bush's critics have made it difficult to have an adult discussion about war and terrorism and diplomacy, therefore there's no reason to be outraged over the President of the United States similarly plays rhetorical and political games? Wow. You have really, really low expectations of a president. "As long as he's no worse than the worst rhetorical excesses of the opposition when it comes to politicizing national security, he's fine by me!" How freakin' pathetic.

[Brendan]

P.S. Two additional points:

1. If any national figure in the Democratic Party has stated, in a setting that's roughly equivalent to the setting in which Bush made his remarks, that "the President not only doesn't mind, but would prefer having U.S. soldiers die if it would line his pockets," I'm unaware of it. Perhaps you could point me to a major policy address by Clinton or Obama, or a major speech on the Senate floor by a party elder, or a presidential debate, or some similar occasion in which such a thing has occurred -- or in which, for that matter, Bush has been accused of fighting a war that's "all about oil."

2. Accusing someone of "appeasement" is a much more serious insult than you're making it out to be. As David points out, Bush is explicitly equating the Democrats' strategy with the failed policies that led to Hitler's rise, World War II, and the Holocaust. That's a pretty God damn serious charge. It is at least on par with calling Bush a "war-mongerer," I'd say, and again, I'm unaware of any instance where a major national Democratic leader has done that, let alone on a stage as grand as this one, in a speech as prepared as this one.

Your sense of proportion is seriously out of whack, Joe.

[Joe Mama]

Likewise, Brendan, I find your hyperventilation about "deliberately using an incorrect term" to be incredibly hypocritical. Bush is called a lying warmonger by the Democrat opposition (perhaps not directly, but that is the inescapable logical conclusion of his critics' remarks) every single day of his presidency. It's been done for so long by so many people that I'm sure most people--including yourself, apparently--no longer give it a second thought.

How many times has Obama criticized Bush for eschewing diplomacy in favor of war? How does that criticism not make Bush a "warmonger"? And now, when Bush finally decides to defend himself (which, as I alluded to previously, he rarely does, probably in an ill-advised attempt to "stay above the fray"), I'm supposed to wet my pants that he used the term "appeasement"? Not in this political climate. If "deliberately using an incorrect term" is the standard by which I'm supposed to get all worked up over what a politician says, whether (s)he is the current POTUS or aspiring to be one, then I'd never get any sleep.

[Angrier and Angrier]

At least if it were declared to be "a war about oil," it would be in the national interest of the U.S. Going to war to oust a tyrant who is horrific to his people is a ridiculous idea when you consider we don't do it for any other country except the one that has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

[David K.]

How many times has Obama criticized Bush for eschewing diplomacy in favor of war? How does that criticism not make Bush a "warmonger"?

If it weren't for the fact that he in fact DID eschew diplomacy in favor of war, then you might have a point...

[Joe Mama]

Thanks for making my point, David.

[Joe Mama]

And in what bizarro world is being called "Neville Chamberlain" worse than being called a "warmonger?" The former is only bad in the face of the latter. The latter is obviously always bad no matter what. Talk about your sense of proportion being seriously out of whack . . .

[franklinstein]

I've put my popcicle-sticks away, although I still have glue on my fingers, so please forgive any tpyos.

First, "Administration Officials" said that this was aimed at Obama? Define administration official? Do they work in the White House? The State Department? The Department of the Interior? Please, anything sourced to an "Administration Official" needs to be taken into account only in passing and only with a huge grain of salt, particularly when this nugget comes out only after named officials have gone on the record (Perino, Gillespie) saying it was not directed at Obama. Call me naive, but I simply put no weight in anonymous leakers.

Secondly, I read (scanned) a few stories in my RSS feed about this speech and not one of them mentioned anything at all about the appeasement line. It was only after the Obama campaign started protesting loudly that the media took this and ran with it, uncritically, never once asking the question why does he think it was directed at him? I suppose if you want to believe that this statement was directed at someone, you could pick Jimmy Carter, who held talks with Hamas last month. Or maybe, all those European and UN diplomats who keep insisting that if only Israel would give up more and more, that Hamas would stop sending rockets into Isreali homes, and shopping center, and day cares. Maybe Bush was talking about those appeasers?

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, the Bush was talking about Obama. Then, as far as I am concerned, using the definition that "appeasement" is "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace", then that is exactly what Obama wants to do. He has stated in the Youtube debate, and on his website, that he will unconditionally meet the President of Iran, face to face (along with Assad, and Castro, and Kim, and Chavez) in his first year of his presidency. That is inferring on to a potential (in my opinion, real) enemy, an enemy who has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and has repeatedly stated his desire to see Israel wiped off the face of the map and is the leader of a country that is actively killing US troops in Iraq, a legitimacy he simply does not deserve in order to maintain some sort of false peace. And don't tell me that he wants to talk to Iran, but not Hamas. Please, Iran is Hamas.

And please, do not take this as a defense of Bush and his non-existant (one could say appeasing) policy towards Iran. I think he made a mistake when he took the advice of democrats and allowed Britain and France and The EU to lead negotiations with Iran. He should have bombed them as soon as we found out they were killing our guys in Iraq. I just don't understand how it is that Obama has so much power over his sycophants in the press that he can snap his fingers and make something appear out of thin air like this.

[Brendan Loy]

Joe Mama, I don't agree with you that "criticiz[ing] Bush for eschewing diplomacy in favor of war" is equivalent to equating diplomacy with "appeasement," but at least now you're making some degree of internally coherent sense, as opposed to babbling about crap that national Democratic leader don't actually say (e.g., the President likes it when soldiers die) and comparing the president's remarks to those straw men. I give you credit for that.

As for why I still don't buy your analogy, I gotta be quick because I want to get home to my wife and baby :) but basically, I think there's a lot of room for interpretation in terms of what the concept of "eschewing diplomacy in favor of war" means. Basically, I hear the Democrats say stuff like that, and I interpret them as criticizing Bush for striking what they regard as an improper balance between "soft power" and "hard power" -- not for loving war, not for fighting war because it's fun and he enjoys it, as you seem to be suggesting they're saying, but simply for putting too much emphasis on war as opposed to diplomacy when he's weighing his options. And of course, that's a criticism that, right or wrong, is well within acceptable discourse. Reasonable people can honestly disagree over the correct balance of "hard power" and "soft power."

Bottom line, I think those sorts of comments by Democratic leaders are defensible, though of course it is also possible to attack them. But they at least arguably have merit, and are not sheer nonsense. Moreover, it seems quite likely that my interpretation of those Democratic comments represents what the Dems actually believe (even if your less charitable interpretation also serves some sort of "red meat" purpose for the liberal base). Whereas equating diplomacy with "appeasement" is not arguably meritorious, it's just sheer nonsense on its face; there is no charitable interpretation of it, it's just plainly "incorrect" (your words); and Bush clearly doesn't believe it's true (as you tacitly admitted when you said you aren't claiming his use of this "incorrect" terminology was an "honest mistake").

Franklinstein, I already addressed your "argument" that merely meeting with enemies inherently "appeases" them, regardless of the substance of the meeting, in my post; I'm not going to repeat myself. It's just utterly ridiculous. But at least we now know that you think Nixon and Reagan (and pretty much every other president in history) were a bunch of dirty-rotten appeasers.

[Joe Mama]

Joe Mama, I don't agree with you that "criticiz[ing] Bush for eschewing diplomacy in favor of war" is equivalent to equating diplomacy with "appeasement," but at least now you're making some degree of internally coherent sense, as opposed to babbling about crap that national Democratic leader don't actually say (e.g., the President likes it when soldiers die) and comparing the president's remarks to those straw men.

Actually, Brendan, I was equating criticism of Bush for eschewing diplomacy in favor of war with calling bush a warmonger. I don't think it's really a debatable point that mainstream Democrats (not just the lunatic left fringe) have repeatedly said that Bush fabricated evidence in order to get the people to support his invasion of Iraq for the benefit of his cronies in the oil business. I mean, I'm paraphrasing here . . . I haven't bothered to google it, but I'm pretty sure at least a few mainstream Democrats have said something more less along those lines. They probably didn't use the words "Bush likes it when soldiers die", but let's not be deliberately obtuse about the implications of what it means when you accuse a President of lying his way into a war, whether it's to please his fatcat oil buddies, satisfy some psychoanalytical condition he his relating to his father and Saddam Hussein, or whatever. Clearly, such a person, at the very least, wouldn't give a sh*t about soldiers dying.

But if "room for interpretation" is under discussion, then let me say that I don't think Bush was saying that all diplomacy with your enemies equals appeasement. Obviously, that would make him an appeaser too, as others have correctly pointed out. Thus, if I were to interpret Bush's words the way you interpret those of his opposition that I take issue with, then I would say that what Bush meant to say was that formal diplomacy in this particular instance regarding Ahmadinejad is tantamount to appeasement, because there is no reasonable negotiation to be had.

[Joe Mama]

FYI - I'm off to get home to my own wife, who is 7 months pregnant (although it seems more like 22-24 months) with our first baby :)

[Shaun]

although i've been purely a reader while a work today, i'll randomly jump in to say that i am off to get home to my wife as well, who has been patiently waiting for me while i've accumulated about 220 hours of studying during the past month and a half since we returned from our honeymoon... and since my actuarial exam was yesterday, she's finally got my full attention... that is, until the next exam season begins

[Alasdair]

Shaun - you have my sympathy ! And my respect for your mathematical abilities ! (I started out in late primary school wanting to become an Actuary, and then I discovered that I was *very* good at solving math problems but *really* didn't like all the theoretical math it was going to take to become an Actuary) ... so I am a mainframe computer geek of the Systems Programmer variety ... a much better fit ...

[David K.]

Well I'll be damned Alasdair, we actually have something in common. I was studying to be an actuary for awhile, even passed the first exam before getting into the computer gig as well, although not on mainframes.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - for a sports geek, I am surprised that you have missed a very important part of this whole story ... (and bear with my weak use of techcal baseball terms, please) ...

Bush's speech was akin to a pitcher pitching towards the batter, yet clearly, patently, obviously far enough off to one side that a skilled batter should ignore it - and, I think, it's called a "ball" ... for whatever reason, Obama and the other Dems hdecided to swing at this "ball" and, understandably, he (and they) missed cuz his/their bat ain't long enough ...

READ the words Bush used ... not only did he not mention the character string "Democrat" in the relevant portion of the speech, he only mentioned "American Senator" once ... and the American Senator to whom Bush referred is/was dramatic drumroll William Borah, an Idaho Republican ...

And, as I understand it, Bush's audience, the Knesset, those who could be cast as the latter-day Sudetenland to Ahmedinajadistic/fundamentalist Islam tourism inclinations gave him a very positive response ...

Let's face it (and switching metaphors) ... Bush cast some bait - and Obama and the Dems rose to the bait - a reasonable person can hardly blame Bush for the sheer wrongheaded stupidity of those who upped and said "You are talking about ME !" in response to his speech to the Knesset ...

It is no different from me making a comment about some blatant knee-jerk BDS activity on this blog while carefully avoiding naming any names and David K gets all huffy and defensive ... it's called self-identification ...

[Alasdair]

David K - for us to find each other as annoying as we often do, it has to have some basis in overlap and similarities ... (grin) ...

[Alasdair]

And at the risk of rivaling Brendan in comment following comment ...

Bush didn't eschew diplomacy in favour of war, he exhausted diplomacy and reluctantly went to war ... and Congress supported his decision and are on record as having done so ... or are you saying that Congress eschewed diplomacy in favour of war ?

[Ed]

Brendan - the appeasement in having a presidential-level summit is that those who completely violate the Oslo Accords in fact, or in spirit (since you love to distinguish b/t reality and diplomacy), would be granted the concession of such a summit. The ongoing abrogation of Oslo, in fact, by the Palestinian state which has refused to acknowledge Israel's right of existence, and of Iran through its Hamas and Hezbollah brigades, necessarily precludes any presidential involvement.

Your learned posters cite Reagan's summits with Gorbachev. Reagan made a tactical decision to give Gorbachev the rope with which to hang himself. When Gorbachev refused to agree to a mutual drawdown of weaponry, Reagan walked out and he continued the deployment of Pershing II missiles. BHO has spoken exclusively of withdrawing from the Iraqi theatre.

Israel gave Iran, er Hamas and Hezbollah control of Gaza. For this, they've been rewarded with near-daily fatal missile attacks. What, specifically, is to be gained from the Israelis engaging in prime ministerial "talks" with Iran?

What you, Brendan, fail to grasp, is that we are in a de facto war with Iran right this minute. Iranian weapons and Iranian-trained factions such as the Quds, are killing our brothers and sisters today. What is to be gained by a presidential summit right now? FDR, and then Truman, decided that nothing short of unconditional surrender would end the war against the Axis. Please tell us all how misguided and "irrational" such a position was. I dare you to argue that the Islamic warriors and their nation-state benefactors are somehow less fanatical than the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germnay.

[David K.]

Alasdair, I wouldn't say Congress eschewed diplomacy, many if not most of the Congressmen who voted for the resolution did so on the basis of Bush's promise to fully persue diplomatic solutions, something he arguably did not do. I blame congress for granting him as much leeway as they did and shirking their responsiblity, I believe they were foolish to do so, but as for actually pursuing war, the blame for that part of the debacle falls squarely on the Presidents shoulders.

[David K.]

Ed, I'm sorry but Iraq and Iran are NOT Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany both invaded other nations, and committed acts of war against the U.S. and their allies. Other than the invasion of Kuwait (which we have already taken care of) neither Iraq nor Iran has done such things. Whether or not there are fanatical people in either country is different than whether or not the present a sizeable threat to the U.S. require millitary action.

You claim we are in a de-facto war with Iran because of their ties to fighters and terrorists. The same claim could be made of the USSR and China in Vietnam and Korea. In both cases we met then and continued to meet with both supposed countries we were at war with, and the end result was peace. If you are going to make the same comparison then you need to follow it through to its logical conclusion and accept that we should in fact be willing to at least meet with Iran. The worst that happens is they don't listen and we eventually go to war anyway.

[Alasdair]

"If you are going to make the same comparison then you need to follow it through to its logical conclusion and accept that we should in fact be willing to at least meet with Iran. The worst that happens is they don't listen and we eventually go to war anyway." - it seems there's hope for the D-list, yet ...

I think you will find that there are ongoing meetings at various levels between Iran and the US ... what Bush is NOT doing, and the president should not do, is meet with the leader of Iran, or Hamas, or Hezbollah - since to do so would be to grant that person status in the eyes of the fanatical fundamentalist Islamic parts of the world ...

When Congress voted to authorise Gulf War II, they eschewed diplomacy in *your* terms ... if the Democratic leaders in the Congress had had the doubts that they NOW claim they had all along, then they were duty-bound to vote against Gulf War II and duty-bound to do so with any parliamentary manoeuvring at their disposal ... instead, they voted FOR Gulf War II ... so - are your Democratic congresscritters the arrant caitiff rogues that you calim Bush to be ? Or is Bush just as wise and prescient as your favourite Democratic Congresscritters ? Cuz they are either BOTH guilty or neither is ...

(And, yes, Senator Obama voted against Gulf War II - stipulated - what about the rest of the Dems ? The ones getting ready to find *some* way to have HRC as the Official Democratic Nominee for President in 2008 ?)

[Alasdair]

Elder Loy - from your lofty yet advancing years, do you consider it a more heinous offence or a lesser one to use "Warshington" ? And is it more heinous or less so to "persue" some goal ?

Talks are a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Benedict]

To follow up on an important point that was mentioned but not fully developed, what exactly would be the point of any direct, non-preconditioned discussions with Iran (d/b/a Hamas & Hezbollah & Mahdi Army, among others)?

Unless Obama was prepared to deploy some Jedi mind tricks which will cause Ahmadinejad to recant his "stinking corpse" rhetoric and start singing Hava Nagila, then what is there to negotiate about? Put another way, if Obama is not prepared to make any concessions whatsoever to Iran, then why bother talking? I mean, I know he's got his whole Morgan Freeman "magic Negro" mojo working, but I'm guessing that neither Ahmadinejad nor any of the mullahs has seen Shawshank (Kim Jong-il probably has though, so maybe he should start there).

If Obama is rational - and I'm sure that Brendan and David K. want us desperately to believe that he is - then a condition precedent to any negotiation must be a willingness to give the other side something it wants, in return for something we want. And giving an unrepentant state sponsor of terror something it wants is appeasement.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

Uplifting to see Joe Mama trying to talk some sense into the overreacting. Two things to add: first, it is impossible to divorce any discussion of "negotiations" with Iran from the actual history of recent efforts by the EU-3 as U.S. proxies. The effect of these negotiations has been exactly "to grant concessions they want" in exchange for peace. Namely, the concession they want is *time*. Time to complete their nuclear program and field weapons, making them effectively untouchable. And to believe that further discussions will have any effect, given Iran's rejection of so many carrots already, suggests an unwillingness to recognize that time is what they so badly want. Second, whatever anonymous officials may say, it is impossible to read this and not think of the Jimmy Carter visit to Hamas, heavily publicized just Eos ago. He has much more right to complain than Sen. Obama.

[Joe Mama]

Benedict makes an excellent point about conditions precedent to any negotiation with Iran. John McCain himself made clear that that he would insist on Iran changing its tune regarding Israel and terrorism before he would "deal with them, one way or the other" in the excerpt quoted above by "John Mccain on Hamas a few years ago" @ 3:36:04 PM, except that the rest of that quote from McCain in Davos is conspicuously absent.

[Joe Mama]

Well, McCain was actually referring to Hamas and Hezbollah in that quote above, not Iran (to the extent they're different with respect to terrorism and their view towards Israel), but the point still stands.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser because Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain told Hitler he could have it if he didn't invade anywhere else. As far as I can tell, Ahmedinejhad hasn't invaded Czechoslovakia, or anywhere else for that matter, and nobody is saying we will give the Iranians what they want simply by talking to them.

There are plenty of despots and thugs in this world who torment their people and threaten other countries. The problem with the Bush Administration is they label some of these people terrorists and others allies.

[Youngblai]

David K.,

_The President_ did not meet with the Soviets during Vietnam until after Nixon took over. Nixon then proceeded to get the Soviets and Chinese to cut aid to the North Vietnamese, both de facto (by allowing us to mine Haiphong) and in fact (by not giving the NVs more advanced weapons or, for that matter, sometimes stopping trains).
Now, if you want to talk about following things through to their logical conclusion, however, you have to tell the rest of that story. Why was Nixon able to go to both those countries? Oh, that nearly nuclear Sino-Soviet clash in 1969. Suddenly both China and the USSR wanted to be our friends and keep the US from joining the other in some alliance. Before that, however, you may recall Brezhnev and Mao's stance towards Johnson basically involved fecal matter, a spoon, and a coroner (i.e., "Eat sh*t and die...").

So, to bring this forward, what is the conflict that's going to make Iran decide it's in its interest to negotiate with us in good faith? (Btw, how did detente turn out for us again?) Moreover, how does one negotiate with someone whose head of state has hosted a conference that had as its primary purpose imagining a world without Israel and the United States? Or how regularly refers to the former as a nation that needs to be erased?

A better analogy to the Iran situation is this:

When a person is shouting that they're going to kill your friend, grievously wound you, and/or have their way with whatever female members of your family you can get a hold of, why should you talk to them? Especially if they're doing all this while smashing your windows and quite publicly assembling a shotgun?

Maybe I'm too much of a Point A to Point B person, but when someone is doing all this and putting the shotgun together, the only talking we need to be conducting is me warning them to cease and desist or, yeah, I'm blowing them away. Taking this back up to the macro, nation state level, the only conversation we should be having with Iran should be involving the end of the threats, the end of the interference, or the consequences that are going to ensue.

Unfortunately, in his (and Congress's) brilliance our fearless leader decided to invade the wrong country and then botched things so badly that we can't clear out the true nest of vipers. As far as Ahmedinejihad not invading anyone--um, okay, Hezbollah is a _great_ thing for the state of Lebanon and, yeah, Hamas didn't have _any_ Iranian support when they started teaching Fatah folks how to fly.

Just because there aren't Iranian tanks rolling across the border doesn't mean Iran's hand is not pulling the strings. If we're going to use that logic, then we shouldn't be in Afghanistan--after all, the Taliban didn't strike us on 9/11 and, with no extradition treaty in place, there was no foul in not giving up OBL. Strange, but I don't see anyone voicing that--so why are we saying Iran can't be held accountable for their proxies' actions?

[Sean]

Guys... Ahmenidijad has almost no real power. He's mostly a figurehead. You'd want to talk with the Ayatollah.

[Barry Eisler]

Fantastic post. Thank you.

-- Barry

[J.]

I certainly agree with the idea that it's hypocritical for the right to criticize the left abroad while expecting the left not to criticize the right, but I have to wonder where you've been these last 7 years if you don't realize, that as far as Bush and most of his party are concerned, the left aren't really Americans anyway, so the 'rule' about not criticizing their politics abroad doesn't apply to them?

[professordarkheart]

2 points:

Negotiation with an opponent does not necessarily entail delivering them a concession and then hoping they follow through with their end of the bargain. It could mean, for instance, promising to give them something if and when they do what YOU want. It can mean threatening that you'll harm them if they don't do what you want within a certain amount of time. It can involve a combination of the two, or it can merely be an attempt to gauge in an informed way what lies behind what they say they want and whether you can use it to your advantage. To suggest that meeting with the leaders of Iran (or Cuba or anywhere else) is automatically a concession is just wrong, as is imagining that diplomacy is a big basket of carrots that you throw at your enemy and hope for the best.

Point 2 is related. How do you get what you want by NOT meeting with Iran? If you have a valid strategy to achieve this, arguing against negotiation might make some sense. If not, well, then not negotiating with them is merely a way of giving them what "Anonymous Hoosier" has helpfully pointed out is what Iran wants more than anything, which is to be left alone as long as possible. We have engaged in a war that at worst maximizes Iranian power in the region and at best limits it to what they already had. And in the meantime, we're focusing all of our energy and time on Iraq and, while we're at it, totally disregarding all of the strategic allies who might actually be in a position to put some kind of pressure on Iran. To be outraged about the idea of direct engagement as an alternative is to elevate attitude over results as the goal of foreign policy.

[David K.]

youngblai, there is a huge gapping hole in your analogy. If someone threatens me or my friends I have options I can turn to, the police and the law are there to intercede. Nations don't have a police and a government system above them (the well meaning but useless UN doesn't really count). The only people who can solve their problems are them.

[Tom P.]

Who says Obama would be negotiating with Ahmadinejad? He is a figure-head president. Obama would probably insist on negotiating with the head Ayatollah. That is where the power lies in Iran.

[Matt]

Nameless One echoed a lot of the feelings I have on this issue.

Should we consider the great Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan, an "appeaser" because he engaged in diplomacy with Gorbachev?

I suppose that by his own "logic" Dubya himself should be labeled as an appeaser for engaging in diplomacy with Khaddafi, "Dear Leader" Kim Jung Il and the Palestinians, no?

[steve]

Anybody here read Arabic? In the eyes of the Arab world Iran is already legitimate. European countries have been negotiating with Iran. China is making deals with Iran. Just exactly who is it that doesn't think Iran is legitimate?

Steve

[jim]

>>- it tends to bestow a certain veneer of legitimacy to the other side, it can be a propaganda coup, etc.

This might be true if you met with governments who weren't officially recognized by every nation on earth -- including the United States. In the case of Iran, how exactly does the mere act of holding talks "bestow a veneer of legitimacy?" They already have much more than a veneer of legitimacy. They are recognized around the world as the legitimate government of Iran.

In other words, bunk. This entire notion is steeped in some imperial fantasy -- the American president is not the Pope. Governments aren't suddenly "legitimized" by kissing the president's ring.

[copndor]

"Anybody here read Arabic? In the eyes of the Arab world Iran is already legitimate. European countries have been negotiating with Iran. China is making deals with Iran. Just exactly who is it that doesn't think Iran is legitimate?"

I'm not so sure European countries find Iran legitimate. I read an interview with Ahmadinejad in Der Spiegel, where he more or less denied the holocaust. The essence of modern Europe is tied up with WWII so much that you can't make such a statement about the holocaust and be legit in Europe. The dozens of angry letters written in to Der Spiegel the next week were a testament to this fact. Europe does not take this guy seriously because he's so obviously wrong about their own history.

[bulaboy67]

Appeasement is buying off a more powerful player, giving him what he wants incrementally, in hopes of preserving the status quo generally, like paying protection to Capone's organization in its heyday. Without ever actually saying so (although Greenspan did) we have come to expect "serious" discussion to unhesitatingly equate our privileged access to Middle Eastern oil with the paramount "national interest" of the USA. So saying it's really about oil isn't some wild-eyed fringe notion, it's the truth. Shift the frame of reference for a second and you see that M.E. oil producers have been appeasing US appetite for oil for decades, hosting our presence militarily and economically and feeling the necessity to risk righteous Muslim wrath for accomodating our transgressions on even the most sacred Saudi soil in order to do lucrative business with us, largely on our terms. Bin Laden proposed, even pleaded with the Saudi regime to let the Mujahadeem defend the holy sites in Arabia against Saddam but he was rejected in favor of accepting "protection" from the US. That, as far as bin Laden was concerned, was "Munich." He tapped and organized the enormous religious fervor and initiated a pre-emptive strike on 9/11 to show us that we were not even safe at home, and could not ultimately assure the protection of the Saudi and other cooperative, appeasing regimes. We all seem to have drawn the conclusion from the Sudetenland example that appeasing bullies is a failed global political strategy, but we mightily resist the insight that especially in the oil producing world, we are perceived as the bully demanding to be appeased. And the history lesson not emphasized in our national political discussion is that appreasment doesn't work either for the appeaser or for the appeased.

[justcorbly]

1. Bush's remark was transparently directed at Obama and pretty much every other Democrat because Bush has spent the last seven years refusing to talk or meet with anyone in the mideast who doesn't already agree with him. He apparently thinks being seen in the same photo with him is enough of an incentive to cause hostile leaders to roll on the ground with their bellies exposed.

2. By refusing to engage in diplomacy, Bush has deliberately tossed aside an entire range of tools that could be used to support the interests of this country. That's gross negligence and gross incompetence.

3. If there ever is an Obama-Ahmadinejad meeting with preconditions, its entire purpose will be for Ahmadinejad to convince Obama that he's not a flamin' flippin' looney, and for Obama to convince Ahmadinejad that he's neither a pansy willing to give in to every Iranian demand nor about to carpet bomb the place with nukes. Besides, any first meeting would almost certainly be preceded by secret talks between the secretary of state and the foreign minister.

4. Conservatives will not have read this far.

[justcorbly]

Make that "meeting without preconditions..."

[Joe Mama]

POTUS meeting with Ahmadinejad legitimizes him most of all in the eyes of Iranian moderates. That's why it's such a bad idea. Ahmadinejad is a radical in his own country, and the best chance for regime change in Iran is through Iranian moderates gaining more power in their gov't. That is made all the more difficult when Ahmadinejad is legitimized by POTUS.

[sferris]

On the record, White House officials issued denials that Bush was talking about Obama when he gave his speech to the Knesset. But on background, they admitted they were attacking Obama. CNN's Ed Henry reported that "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party." Sasha Issenberg writes for the Boston Globe: "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama." So, let call the the White House denials what they are, lies. The rest of the world must be amazed at the stupidity of this administration handling of foreign policy. It's hard to see it getting any better with McCain.

sferris - while you seem new here, you CANNOT be that wet behind the ears !

"CNN's Ed Henry reported that "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party." Sasha Issenberg writes for the Boston Globe: "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama." " - so CNN and the Boston Globe are only capable of speaking truth, are they ? Especially about the current White House ?

Have *I* got waterfont property to sell you in Florida ! And it can even be reached on the other side of your very own Brooklyn Bridge !

OY !

READ the words Bush used for yourself ! Senator Obama had to STRETCH to grab hold of the words ... bait, they were indeed ... and an intelligent person would have simply ignored such obvious bait ...

[Jim Hu]

"not within the realm of rationality"
"nitwits"
"anyone who responds incorrectly is either an idiot or a liar."
"Go back to third grade art class"

Wow, that new politics of change really can bring us together! Yes it can!

Here's a bit of what I wrote on my blog:

It seems to me that Obama lost a chance to show that he's the kind of politician he claims to be - by laughing off the suggestion that there's any difference there... and perhaps pointing out that the US has been willing to talk to Fatah.

But maybe Obama thought W was talking about Bill Ayers.

Update: Andrew Sullivan obsesses about competing White House off the record tips - it was about Obama, it was about Carter, it was about the whole sorry lot of the Dems.

This misses the point. W had enough strategic ambiguity to pretend that it was about someone else, and as long as nobody surfaces a YouTube of Bush gloating a la David Corn's fantasies, barely plausible deniability is all the White House needs to play their game of getting Obama to look like Imelda Marcos at a shoe sale. The hints that yes, it really was just about Barack keep the Dems sputtering in outrage, and few things mobilize the R base like sputtering Democrats. It mobilizes the D base, too, but I think the GOP calculation right now has to be that:

• The extra motivation of the BDS/MoveOn voters won't change their turnout. They're already fired up and ready to go.


• They need to keep their base in the game while McCain is tacking to the center.


• This may motivate the Obama supporters, but it could solidify the doubts of the Reagan Dems who are currently voting for Hillary

That same thin deniability gave Obama the opening to decline this old politics dance. He had stronger political weapons than outrage available and didn't use them.

[Jmac]

If Obama is rational - and I'm sure that Brendan and David K. want us desperately to believe that he is - then a condition precedent to any negotiation must be a willingness to give the other side something it wants, in return for something we want. And giving an unrepentant state sponsor of terror something it wants is appeasement.

While I obviously feel this is an insanely foolish argument to make - as well as offering false and yet-to-be-determined positions from Obama - I'm sure you feel that the deal struck by the Bush Administration with North Korea was appeasement then, right? The one in which we are providing energy and food assistance in exchange for them dismantling their nuclear program.

And arguably our close friendship with Saudi Arabia, one of our chief providers of oil, is appeasement too seeing how the majority of 9/11 hijackers were native to that country.

[sferris]

Bush isn't doing McCain any favors. Frankly, I hope Bush stays on the stump. It provides a context for election. Obama, on one side, and Bush, McCain, on the other. Happy 72 birthday McCain!

[Alasdair]

Jmac - if you look back throughout history, you will find that the great majority of terrorists owe their allegiance only to their "cause" - and they often are fighting against and terrorising the land of their birth ...

WRT N Korea, there is a great difference between appeasing someone with the strength and Will to do harmful things (qv Hitler, Adolf), and uncornering an increasingly desperate rat (qv Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il) ...

(grin) And, with Saudi Arabia, it's not so much a friendship as a co-dependency ...

[Hal]

The psychopath Ahmadinejad has repeatedly referred to the Holocaust as "a myth" and has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." And, as Iran (where, according to the psychopath there are "no homosexuals") is the principal financier of those murdering our soldiers in Iraq, President Bush's comments, honoring the 60th anniversary of the Sovereign State of Israel, were perfectly appropriate. Barack Obama revealed a very disturbing strain of narcissism in presuming the president was referring to him when his name was never even mentioned. Obama's willingness to meet "unconditionally" with Ahmadinejad must have emerged from the same few synapses that determined he had now visited "57 states."

[Joe Mama]

Obama's whole "unconditional meeting" schtick about Ahmadinejad started off simply as a response to a debate question, but now Obama has been roped into elevating it into formal policy. Big mistake.

[Joe Mama]

John Bolton, my favorite UN Ambassador, put it quite well in today's WSJ:

At first glance, the idea of sitting down with adversaries seems hard to quarrel with. In our daily lives, we meet with competitors, opponents and unpleasant people all the time. Mr. Obama hopes to characterize the debate about international negotiations as one between his reasonableness and the hard-line attitude of a group of unilateralist GOP cowboys.

The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.