Yes, we can.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Well, waddya know. Seems Bush likes to talk to The Enemy after all! Bush in talks with Sudan.


Hypocrite.

But I suppose this isn't hypocrisy:

They(Hamas) don't recognize Israel," Obama told reporters. "You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of a country to exist."

Pretty much what Bush has been saying all along...

[scaeagles]

Except that the Sudan has been willing to offer us certain things - like say, Osama bin Laden during the Clinton administration. And before anyone yells "NO! IT ISN'T TRUE!", there is audio of Clinton saying it.

This has nothing to do with the Sudanese trying to undermine the US or a US ally...it has to do with brokering a cease fire to stop genocide, which by the way, the previous administration ignored while 800,000 people were being slaughtered.

Honestly, I see a genuine difference between brokering peace deals (which happens all the time in the middle east, though to no avail) for a civil war and talking with nations and terrorists who wish to bring direct harm to the US and our allies.

As far as the other countries mentioned - yeah, I have a problem if direct and inconditional talks were going on with Syria. With Cuba? Not so much - again that goes to what they are doing to support terrorism and undermine the US through that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

Although I'm not sure what you would hope to accomplish by meeting with someone "you can't" negotiate with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Although I'm not sure what you would hope to accomplish by meeting with someone "you can't" negotiate with.

I've already talked about this before. Information, engagement, knowledge. You will ALWAYS give yourself a better chance of acting intelligently if you have more lines of communication. You don't have to make a deal to gain something out of talks.

What doyu do with that information of course ultimately determines its value, and no amount of talking or information will mean jack-sh*t if you don't act intelligently on it. But to make the blanket statement that you're just going to close your eyes and plug your ears is, to my mind, a guarantee that you'll be working from an incomplete picture to make decisions.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But to make the blanket statement that you're just going to close your eyes and plug your ears is, ...

No one has been suggesting that: clearly we do talk and meet with our foes on a lower level basis; but what Obama has suggested in the past(but is running away from now I think) is that He personally should meet with our enemies....and I think Hillary Clinton has the best response to that:

Obama's position was "irresponsible and frankly naive" and said that as president she wouldn't meet leaders such as Fidel Castro or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said.

In other words, your very "meeting" with the bad guys, regardless whether you negotiate or give up anything at all, works to their advantage....they can show their people that they are legitimate since they got to meet with the President of the United States.

[wendybeth]

You don't think Sudan isn't playing this up to the hilt? They must be loving the fact that they got the Great Non-Negotiator to enter into talks with them. I love all the relativism being applied around here; it's not okay for one person to say that they would be open to talking with rogue nations, but when your own candidate actually does it then you practically snap in two trying to justify it away.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

You should probably point that out to Obama then:


http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008...mas_100345.htm

"I understand why Israel does not meet with Hamas," the Illinois senator said

[scaeagles]

WB, you don't see a difference in acting as a mediator between sides in a civil war to prevent another million or so deaths and negotiating with a government that actively supports terrorism and is pursuing nukes? I do.

I don't even think its a stretch, much less a "snap in two" proposition. I did say I had a problem with the whole Syria thing, so I clearly draw a distinction.

[wendybeth]

I'd suggest you read up on the Sudanese government, Scaeagles. Precious little separates it from any of the others, aside from it's willingness to play reindeer games with us. Any assertions of noble intent on either our side or theirs is BS- we talk about wanting to help stop their civil war and prevent another Rwanda, but really we don't care. We are more concerned about our own interests in the area, not the ruling (Islamic) party. The Sudanese government is a well-known supporter of the Islamic jihad, btw. Here's an excerpt from the Council on Foreign Relations:

"
Does Sudan sponsor terrorism?

Despite increasing cooperation by Sudan, the U.S. State Department continues to formally designate it as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The State Department first labeled Sudan a sponsor of terrorism on August 12, 1993. Since then, the United States has accused Sudan of harboring members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, each classified as a terrorist organization. In 1996, the UN Security Council placed sanctions (PDF) on Sudan for harboring suspects wanted for the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The same year, U.S. investigators linked two Sudanese diplomats to a terrorist cell planning to bomb the UN building in New York. In 1998, al-Qaeda operatives based in Sudan were allegedly involved in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Throughout the 1990s, Sudan was also accused of supporting local insurgencies in Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea."



Yeah, they sound really nice.