Does the word "tool" mean anything to you, in context?

These people are suicidal fanatics who will gladly sacrifice 100 of themselves to get one of us. How the hell can we negotiate with them? They are just stalling so that they can attack with nukes hours after obtaining them...

there's a lot going on here we still don't know about

Interesting that, given the grave threat to western civilization that you say Iran represents, you are not enraged and demanding to know the Bush negotiating position, right now, today. President above country, Politics above country, every time...

with some people Bush just can't win.

Not true. This is a good thing, just as attempting to work out our issues with N Korea without violence is one. I will always give credit where credit is due.

None of this changes the fact that the right was screaming "appeasement" at Obama just a short time ago. There is a huge leap from "naive" to appeasement, (which is what was being said) and I suspect you know it. Spin it all you want, Obama was calling for what Bush had apparently already been doing in a quiet way. And the right eviscerated him for it. Politics above country...

And to think that, such a short time ago, the right was accusing Obama of being a proto-traitor for wanting to do just this...

No, I called him such for wanting to do it unconditionally. Major difference. Clearly, given the nature of this thing there's a lot going on here we still don't know about.

The Bush administration appears to be using a carrot and stick, good cop-bad cop, whatever you want to call it approach. You could say it's nuanced even. Of course it could have been the Iranians who made the initial gestures of reconciliation.

While we are all guessing at what has been and is happening the one thing I know for sure is with some people Bush just can't win.

Um, no. What the American public sees is an administration who literally called such actions "appeasement" just a few short weeks ago, apparently start doing what liberals and the democratic nominee have been calling for - for years

heh.
Does the word 'negotiation' mean anything to you, in context?

Sounds a lot like appeasement to me. That is, if we redefine the term to mean anything other than “shoot first, ask questions later.” Which, as I understand it, we have.

non-concur.

Appeasement, in this context has always meant 'unconditional' talks with Iran.
Posted by Bithead | May 22, 2008 | 11:08 am | Permalink

they find Bush has already been doing it.

And to think that, such a short time ago, the right was accusing Obama of being a proto-traitor for wanting to do just this...

Um, no. What the American public sees is an administration who literally called such actions "appeasement" just a few short weeks ago, apparently start doing what liberals and the democratic nominee have been calling for - for years.

Keep putting lipstick on that pig, Dr. B. Regardless of the reality of the situation - certainly, I don't think it's this silly black and white cartoon - this is the way it looks. Your feeble attempts at spin won't play to anyone who isn't a ditto head.

And the Bush administration, despite saber rattling, has obviously been talking as well.

The amusing thing about these reports is the stance that our relations with Iran deteriorated markedly under Bush. After all, Bill Clinton had eight years in office during a much more settled period in U.S. - Middle East relations and made no serious moves in this direction.

ANd so we see leftists who have been screaming that we should be talking to Iran wandering around in circles, talking to themselves as they find Bush has already been doing it.