McCain Gets Basic Iran Fact Wrong
Joe Klein (inadvertantly?) exposes McCain's stubborn ignorance about Iran:
KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?
MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.
KLEIN: One more quest-
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know...
Ask 'em ... and if they gave that answer, they'd be wrong. And it would be up to a John McCain, someone "experienced in foreign policy," to correct them. If he could. Which he apparently cannot.
I don't know what's worse: McCain's pandering flip-flops or his sheer, seemingly willful, ignorance. Too bad he didn't have Joe Lieberman standing next to him to whisper the correct answer into his ear.
Pushing this out a little, neither of the two presumptive nominees appears to be aware of the fact that we have talked to the Iranians in recent years. Starting after 9/11 and again with three party talks in Iraq we have had talks several times. It would certainly bolster Obama's position and could give McCain some separation from Bush (even if that separation would only be symbolic).
"...neither of the two presumptive nominees appears to be aware of the fact that we have talked to the Iranians in recent years."
This suggests that Obama knows and is talking specifically about "aggressive personal diplomacy”.
Obama is a liberal intellectual, he knows his shit and that's what he bases his decisions on. McCain is a "conservative" warmonger, he knows what he wants and doesn't care much about any information or facts that might get in the way.
shep,
But he is not appearing that way.
Obama is liberal, that seems obvious, but he is not so much a "liberal intellectual" as he is a bona fide intellectual. No one should need anything more than his record of accomplishment at Harvard to conclude that. I doubt Obama would embrace such a limited title as you used since he is more than eager to embrace "Obamacans". Even I find the "intellectual" argument for supporting him strong.
I also suspect McCain knows this as well and is also appearing not to know. He serves on the Armed Services committee, surely they were briefed on the trilateral talks.
Obama, is letting the other portion of the talks we have had with Iran appear to not exist. Read this. The last paragraph is the only thing you really need to read. We have had direct talks with the Iranian since 9/11. The Bush Admin. has authorized direct talks with them already. It is a huge pillar of support to Obama's argument. BTW, I'm in favor of talking to Iran.
I have a request...
...or rather I'm going to ask everyone to avoid engaging in one of my pet peeves.
Would you -- all -- be so kind as to please not use the word "this" as a hyperlink to another website or webpage that backs up your point.
Instead, please simply state your point and then link to whatever you wish.
End of sermon. Thanks!
"The Bush Admin. has authorized direct talks with them already. It is a huge pillar of support to Obama's argument. BTW, I'm in favor of talking to Iran."
The issue seems to be unconditional (with preparatory agreements) presidential-level talks between leaders. That's why I don't think Obama is making a big deal out of lower-level discussions. It also doesn't help his rhetoric about the refusal-to-meet-with-adversaries hawkish radicalism of Bush/McCain which is quite effective outside a very narrow circle of right-wing mouth-breathers.
Ara,
I'll try to keep your preference in mind in the future. Can we use "this" or "that" or "here" after the argument or would you prefer something like "please refer to this link"? Footnoting is inherently brief based on the rules and customs of writing, maybe 'a, b, c' or 1, 2, 3' would work?
shep,
Clearly, Bush has not talked face to face with Khamenei in direct meetings. However, that is not the only yardstick used to measure direct talks. Ambassador to ambassador is a perfectly legitimate form of discourse between nations. Do you think the 9/11 Commission failed in some way to measure how legitimate "direct" talks were?
"unconditional (with preparatory agreements)"
Your argument rests on a definition of "preparatory agreements" where you agree with Obama and disagree with Bush. That's perfectly valid. However, if someone chooses to draw a different line in the sand they are nevertheless still engaged in the same activity. Saying, 'This is what you must demonstrate before I'll agree that we are negotiating in good faith'.
Obama has a lower hurdle and in some ways that is a good thing.
Eric:
Footnoting is inherently brief based on the rules and customs of writing
I would prefer that you briefly summarize what the link refers to. That way, the flow of your thought is clearer and the reader can better decide to go/not go to the site you link to.
Thanks again.
Got it. I'll work towards that goal when commenting. Please bear with me as I adjust to the customs of your blog.
"Do you think the 9/11 Commission failed in some way to measure how legitimate "direct" talks were?"
"Your argument rests on a definition of "preparatory agreements" where you agree with Obama and disagree with Bush.'
Eric, I was speaking only about the political utility of Obama pointing to low-level talks with Iran.
No one has any idea what is meant by "without preconditions" because that is a practical impossibility. So, yes, I agree with the idea that he should be willing to meet with other top leaders, especially adversarial ones, with only the limited preconditions which are necessary to conduct such a meeting.
Heh.