Obamas response should have been:

"If President Bush doesn't like my foreign policy . . .well . . .good. I want a successful foreign policy. And that man is last person I would want agreeing with my plan."

FTA: "It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity,"

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't the personnel change be a great time to deal with this sort of thing? Of course, not talking or doing anything at all and holding on to decades long embargoes at the expense of an entire people has worked so well...

I Said: "If President Bush doesn't like my foreign policy . . .well . . .good. I want a successful foreign policy. And that man is last person I would want agreeing with my plan."

Not only that, but we have trade and diplomatic relations with China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries with abysmal humans rights records. We can meet with other heads of state, even if it's only to tell them "we're concerned, and want to do right by them, but..."

You know, Clinton once had the head of the PLO over to Camp David for the weekend, and while it may not have been particularly effective, it kept the lines of communication open, and the Palestinians loosened the sticks in their asses for a while as a direct result of being invited to the dialogue, for once.

I wish Albie Duncan was real. That mean old man from the West Wing would set Dubya straight.

From another article:

At a debate last week with Clinton -- following Fidel Castro's announced resignation -- Obama, D-Ill., said he would be willing to meet with Cuba's new leader, though he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

In other words, don't expect anything to change.

If you don't meet with the foreign leader, your conscience bothers you less when it comes time to undermine him.

Cuba I'd like to see happen. If we need to deal with Iran let it be through third parties as we have been doing. Hell, I'd be more than ok with communication with the ayatollah's... just not Ahmadinejad.

If you think about it, our president should be meeting with heads of parliament, etc, instead of kings and dictators.

RobertBruce: Cuba I'd like to see happen. If we need to deal with Iran let it be through third parties as we have been doing. Hell, I'd be more than ok with communication with the ayatollah's... just not Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator. He doesn't even make military policy. In Iran, presidents are more of a figurehead.

RobertBruce: Cuba I'd like to see happen. If we need to deal with Iran let it be through third parties as we have been doing. Hell, I'd be more than ok with communication with the ayatollah's... just not Ahmadinejad.

I'm iffy on Iran. This may sound silly, but traditionally I'd be against any talks. However, the guys who are viciously against it are the same guys who have been wrong about everything in international relations.

Literally one of the strongest argument, to me, for us starting talks with these countries is that people who have been horribly wrong about international politics so far are against it.

I think if Bush calls you an idiot, its like a double negative so it's okay. If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

FTA: It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity

Dictators President George W. Bush's administration has no trouble talking to:

General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan
Nursultan Ifarkedyourmom Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan (Is nice...NOT)
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President of Equatorial New Guinea
Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia
Muhammad Hosni Sayed Mubarak, President of Egypt
The Al-Thani family, defacto regime of Qatar

Sources[1][2]

Sleeping Monkey: If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

What a terrifyingly accurate thought.

muck4doo: From another article:

At a debate last week with Clinton -- following Fidel Castro's announced resignation -- Obama, D-Ill., said he would be willing to meet with Cuba's new leader, though he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

In other words, don't expect anything to change.

In other words, the magic negro who's gone 8 months to election day without making a single earnest definitive policy proposal keeps on being magic.

/If he keeps it up for 4-8 years, I'll be happy.

Bush is a horse's ass.
Not saying Obama is a genius, but articulating a response to anything Bush says is like arguing with a tweaker in the subway.

You know who else met with people who thought talking made things better?

Jon Snow: FTA: It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity

This is my biggest issue with the dems. The repubs can easily dumb down an issue and then only explain their side. The dems have not gotten a handle on this, and it isn't a difficult thing to do.

They think they can actually inform people in 30 second interviews and 5 minute speeches.

Here's the problem: There are only so many of us who WANT to be informed. And we'll go to the websites. And we'll watch the news.

That other 50% of the country (on the right and left) need the conversation dumbed down.

What's wrong with talking?

What do we give up by talking to our supposed enemies?

What has the Cowboy Diplomacy of the last eight years gained us?

How dense does one have to be to be outraged by the thought of talking?

I Said: I'm iffy on Iran. This may sound silly, but traditionally I'd be against any talks. However, the guys who are viciously against it are the same guys who have been wrong about everything in international relations.

Honest question. Why be against talks?

And another thing: Isn't it ironic that for 8 farking years, the dems have been criticizing Bush for being a rich kid, an empty suit, shallow ivy league with no real intelligence, a drug user, a demagogue, and a business-as-usual establishment asshat who never accomplished anything real in his lifetime, and now their on the verge of electing someone who is the person they sterotyped Bush as being. If only Bush has taken some tanning pills.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. JFK

tinster9: Honest question. Why be against talks?

Because we are the superpower right now.(I'm not looking for a fight about that or a projection on who will be in the future) Iran is run by shiatty people. Now, as others have pointed out and I agree with, so are many of our "ally" nations.

And we (America) do hold a LOT of responsibility for them being run by shiatty people.

But everyone wants to deal with us. North Korea, Iran, all countries want a seat at our table. I think this is for many reasons, chief among them military and trade. Strategically I believe it's better to have the other country make concessions first. Don't say "we'll talk about concessions from you and prizes from us". Say "The talk IS the prize. You get that after you make concessions".

I think that, had we not farked up Iraq and Afghanistan, and pretty much did more for radicals over there then their own leaders could ever dream of, the U.S. would still be in a good position to say that.

TheAbstractor: And another thing: Isn't it ironic that for 8 farking years, the dems have been criticizing Bush for being a rich kid, an empty suit, shallow ivy league with no real intelligence, a drug user, a demagogue, and a business-as-usual establishment asshat who never accomplished anything real in his lifetime, and now their on the verge of electing someone who is the person they sterotyped Bush as being. If only Bush has taken some tanning pills.

I completely agree with that comparison. Except for everything I highlighted.

I Said: Jon Snow: FTA: It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity

This is my biggest issue with the dems. The repubs can easily dumb down an issue and then only explain their side. The dems have not gotten a handle on this, and it isn't a difficult thing to do.

They think they can actually inform people in 30 second interviews and 5 minute speeches.

Here's the problem: There are only so many of us who WANT to be informed. And we'll go to the websites. And we'll watch the news.

That other 50% of the country (on the right and left) need the conversation dumbed down.

I don't understand your post. You're saying that the Dems only explain their positions through speeches and sound bites?

Obama has the best explained, most aggressive energy policy of any one running. The entire time he's been attacked for having no positions, no one seems to address this. It's there, available for anyone to read[1][2].

I like how the anti-meet people try to pretend that if we don't meet with them, they aren't real leaders. Like, they aren't actually important if we don't meet with them.

It's the Loony Toons "I can't fall off the cliff unless I look down" theory of international diplomacy.

I Said

I think I may have missed some snark.

I voted for Obama in the Alabama primary. Pray he wins the nomination. Somebody reliable needs to go into the White House to make sure George II and Bill have finally left the building.

Well Jeez... I thought it was a pretty good idea until I heard Bush was against it.

I Said: Strategically I believe it's better to have the other country make concessions first. Don't say "we'll talk about concessions from you and prizes from us". Say "The talk IS the prize. You get that after you make concessions".

What is their motivation? That we will not attack them? It that the motivation that we want to be betraying?

tinster9: Honest question. Why be against talks?

Nothing. Worked for Nixon in China, didn't it? Of course, he had Dr. Kissinger making the foreign policy decisions.

I'm surprised though, with Florida being so important in the electoral college, and Obama sucking up all the Latino vote lately, that he would specifically mention Cuba. Iran, N. Korea, sure. You're not going to piss off a big part of the electorate in an important state by doing that. But Cuba might cost him. Of course, he has plenty of time to "refine" that statement before the general election; Florida is out of the primary.

Jon Snow: I don't understand your post. You're saying that the Dems only explain their positions through speeches and sound bites?

Obama has the best explained, most aggressive energy policy of any one running. The entire time he's been attacked for having no positions, no one seems to address this. It's there, available for anyone to read[1][2].

That's not what I meant. I completely agree with you about Obama as well.

But my point was that Obama can say whatever he wants. It's a matter of whether or not the public wants to be informed.

I see it on fark all the time, the argument that he "has no positions" and "it's empty rhetoric" and until recently I have responded the way you did: facts and sources.

But I stopped responding that way about a week ago when I realized that, at this point in the race, if you don't know a candidates position it is because you are trying to avoid being informed. As I said, I'll watch the speeches and go to the site. I'll inform myself. But that isn't true for a very large part of the voting population.

The dems try to educate voters, but it means shiat if the voters don't want to be educated.

The repubs try to win fights. EVERYONE wants to win a fight.

That's my point. It's two different approaches and the repubs approach is why they routinely win get voters from the poor and middle class (people voting against their own interests in many cases) and why they can get away with saying stupid shiat as the president did here and not too many people get pissed.

The point that meeting with just any rogue leader only emboldens their cause and validates their position in power is a good one.

However, starting negotiations by clumping them into an axis of evil that we would never talk to doesn't move things forward either.

Bush is all stick, no carrot. And that emboldens people too.

tinster9: What is their motivation? That we will not attack them? It that the motivation that we want to be betraying?

Not at all. I think the motivation is trade (we are the worlds largest consumer) and if, over the long term relations improve well enough, having the worlds largest military on your side in some conflicts.

I didn't mean military as in "we'll beat you up if we don't like you" but as in "we'll back you up if we do".

Outtaphase: The point that meeting with just any rogue leader only emboldens their cause and validates their position in power is a good one.

But they exist. They *are* the leaders. Ignoring them doesn't do anything. This is like saying that if a kid lives with parents who are assholes, the neighbors should act as though the parents don't exist when there is a neighborhood meeting. They live there - they have an impact. Pretend they aren't "valid" is ridiculous. They are the leaders. Period. We don't get to choose who leads other nations.

Sleeping Monkey: I think if Bush calls you an idiot, its like a double negative so it's okay. If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

And if he gives you a Medal, you're really farked.

GWB disagreeing with Obama is a STRONG endorsement of Obama for all us Americans who are sick of his failed foreign policy bullshiat.

DamnYankees: But they exist. They *are* the leaders. Ignoring them doesn't do anything. This is like saying that if a kid lives with parents who are assholes, the neighbors should act as though the parents don't exist when there is a neighborhood meeting. They live there - they have an impact. Pretend they aren't "valid" is ridiculous. They are the leaders. Period. We don't get to choose who leads other nations.

Well, sometimes we do . . .but it rarely works.

But I think a better analogy is a business. If you want to do business with Wal-Mart, and be in all their stores and get viewed by millions world wide, then you play by Wal-Mart's rules.

Otherwise you can stay in your mom-and-pop shop or negotiate with Woolworths.

Sleeping Monkey: I think if Bush calls you an idiot, its like a double negative so it's okay. If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

And yet he beat you and your team. Twice.

What does that make you?

DamnYankees: We don't get to choose who leads other nations.

But we do get to tell them who can sit at the grown-up table. I think Obama's point is that he would talk to the kid's table just long enough to tell them what it would take to sit at the grown-up table, nothing more. Bush pretends the kid's table doesn't exist, and ironically has to spend most of our dinner time dealing with them.

BravadoGT: Sleeping Monkey: I think if Bush calls you an idiot, its like a double negative so it's okay. If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

And yet he beat you and your team. Twice.

What does that make you?

it is because of dumbshiats like you who don't weigh their decisions properly.

Outtaphase: But we do get to tell them who can sit at the grown-up table. I think Obama's point is that he would talk to the kid's table just long enough to tell them what it would take to sit at the grown-up table, nothing more. Bush pretends the kid's table doesn't exist, and ironically has to spend most of our dinner time dealing with them.

I couldn't agree more with this.

if he just did this instead of speaking he would look more intelligent

rawsta: BravadoGT: Sleeping Monkey: I think if Bush calls you an idiot, its like a double negative so it's okay. If Bush calls you a genius, that's when people will start to worry.

And yet he beat you and your team. Twice.

What does that make you?

it is because of dumbshiats like you who don't weigh their decisions properly.

Ah, the tried-and-true liberal philosophy on life. "Either you agree with me politically, or you're a dumbshiat."

Well played, sir. Well played!

BravadoGT: Ah, the tried-and-true liberal philosophy on life. "Either you agree with me politically, or you're a dumbshiat."

Well played, sir. Well played!

Bush is a dumbass and his administration is a failure. But the repubs are far more concerned with winning elections and gaining power then actually governing.

That's why they are good at getting into office, and suck shiat while there.

No, BravadoGT, it has nothing to do with "agreeing with me". Do you see whats happening in the world today?? Do you see how Amurrrica has fallen out of favor with almost every country in the world? Do you need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing??
Stop trying to reduce any argument to liberal vs. conservative. that is whats wrong with this country right now.

use your farking brain and analyze situations for yourself. tell me 5 things that bush has done to help this country?

In addition to being a Black Power churchgoer, having the middle name Hussein, and being trained in terror camps...and having been caught on camera in a turban...he wants to befriend a Commie?

Maybe he's just out of coke.

"It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity"

Status? Aren't they, you know... already motherf*ckin' dictators?

I_C_Weener: In addition to being a Black Power churchgoer, having the middle name Hussein, and being trained in terror camps...and having been caught on camera in a turban...he wants to befriend a Commie?

Maybe he's just out of coke.

wow, just wow.im in awe due to your ignorance. im not even an obama supporter and that is one of the stupidest comments i have ever read.

rawsta: use your farking brain and analyze situations for yourself. tell me 5 things that bush has done to help this country?

I'll help with two: the no-call list and expansion of daylight savings time.