Joe Biden: The President had me negotiate with Gaddafi - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 05-19-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

Keep the first part of my post in mind--when he negotiates, you get upset. When he doesn't, you get upset.

Negotiation is a very good thing, but last week when Obama suggested negotiation he was labeled as an appeaser by both Bush and McCain.. that is all, the hypocrisy of the wright is more obvious daily.

otis p. driftwood · 05-19-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

Negotiation is a very good thing, but last week when Obama suggested negotiation he was labeled as an appeaser by both Bush and McCain.. that is all, the hypocrisy of the wright is more obvious daily.

What are you even talking about? When did Bush mention Obama?

otis p. driftwood · 05-19-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

When did he ever negotiate? Bush, I'm talking about. I get upset because he doesn't negotiate - not when he doesn't negotiate. There is no when. I have no point of reference for that. That's not a strong position, IMO. It reveals a critical weakness in his presidential game.

If Bush asks Biden to negotiate, why is that a bad thing? And both Gates and Condi are talking about negotiating, why is that bad?

What I don't understand is the whole thing of bashing him for not negotiating, then bashing him when you find out there have been secret talks.

And don't call me a rumpswab, ya bilge rat!

otis p. driftwood · 05-19-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

The argument all along is that Obama would meet with the President of Iran, while Clinton, Bush, and others would only use surrogates. Biden's addresses that by saying the issue is political, not real, and that's true. There are certainly times that a meeting between enemies leads to results (Reagan-Gorby, Sadat-Begin), so it should not be ruled out.

Exactly right. There are times when the two leaders need to meet face to face. There are other times when doing that grants the other leader a stature that might be better not granted. I think that was the problem with BHO saying he'd meet with these leaders--by doing that, you grant them legitimacy.

But what do I know...or any of us, really?

***Patters*** · 05-19-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

If Bush asks Biden to negotiate, why is that a bad thing? And both Gates and Condi are talking about negotiating, why is that bad?

What I don't understand is the whole thing of bashing him for not negotiating, then bashing him when you find out there have been secret talks.

And don't call me a rumpswab, ya bilge rat!

Oh, come on, it's pretty clear that negotiation is not a strong suit of this administration. It does not mean they never do it, they just don't do it enough or, as a rule do it well.

And, besides, Bush deserves to be bashed for the hypocrisy directed at Obama for emphasizing the use of greater diplomacy even with our enemies.

Stokes · 05-19-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

You think Biden's making this up?

On Condi:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4237049.stm

On Gates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051404020.html

You rumpswabs need to do a little research before you open your mouths and puke out this junk........

Perhaps you should actually read the articles you post before starting in with the name calling. Look at the one for Condi. In it she is talking about diplomacy being offered by the EU to Iran, NOT direct talks between Bush and Ahmadinejad. Now its totally possible that Condi has advocated direct talks with Ahmadinejad without conditions, but what you posted does not show that. Ditto the Gates thing, he is obviously more open to talks with Iran, but in the article he talks about finding leverage for talks, and opening channels outside of government. Again, where is he saying the US should sit down with that madman for direct talks with no preconditions?

***DarrylS*** · 05-19-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

What are you even talking about? When did Bush mention Obama?

He did not name names but what he said to the Knesset, somethings you do not have to say.. the implication is obvious, now come back with your typical limp dycked wright wing response the he did not specifically say Obama, who the f.. else could he be talking about.. this is what it is, all the while Rice and Gates are either advocating for negotiations and actively involved.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20080515f.html

"

Quote:

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," Bush said. "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."

otis p. driftwood · 05-19-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Oh, come on, it's pretty clear that negotiation is not a strong suit in this administration. It does not mean they never do, they just don't do it enough or, as a rule do it well.

Oh come on what?

One thing I wonder about--as this little tidbit from Biden shows--is how much negotiation is actually being done that we don't know about? GWB likes to keep his cards pretty close, so there may well be a lot going on we don't know about, because this administration doesn't care what CNANMSBC thinks.

Or there could be nothing going on. Who knows...but I'm not sure we can say "as a rule" about it.

Be honest: how many resolutions did the UN pass to tell Saddam to disarm? How much negotiation was involved? At what point does it cease being negotiation and just become farce?

I don't know the answer. Apparently GWB felt he did.

***Harry Boy*** · 05-19-2008, 10:02 AM

Negotiate With Hitler-----

otis p. driftwood · 05-19-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

He did not name names but what he said to the Knesset, somethings you do not have to say.. the implication is obvious, now come back with your typical limp dycked wright wing response the he did not specifically say Obama, who the f.. else could he be talking about.. this is what it is, all the while Rice and Gates are either advocating for negotiations and actively involved.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20080515f.html

"

Didn't he just say "appeasers"? That could be anyone and everyone, couldn't it? The UN, that had 17 or 18 resolutions, and won't act in Darfur or Myanmar...

And what's with the limp dick wright wing thing? Is that a new talking point or did you make it up yourself? Because I'm not sure a personal attack is necessary.