These 8 years of Bush have many of us (the author of the diary included) thinking irrationally. Yes, Obama is suggesting a policy of discussion with the enemy. Yes, he says that he would talk to Iran but that he would not negotiate with Hamas. The issues are clearly different.
WisePrince, answer this question for me: Did we have, in the 1960s, open lines of communication with the Soviet Union? Did we have backdoor channels to talk to them, and yes, even negotiate with them?
(To make it simple for you, the answer is yes, we did)
And then answer this: did we have open lines of communication with Cuba?
(The answer is no)
I suppose JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan were all incoherent morons too? Or maybe its just you...
If you do not engage the enemy, you lose all control. Think about the interests of Iran and Hamas. They are looking to shore up their own political support and they can do it better with a defiant America talking in tones of "Axis of Evil."
However, if we engage them, we give credence to the moderates that exist within their countries/organizations. Engagement does not mean giving away the farm.
I never said that simply talking to Iran is a bad idea. It's clear that many hear which to keep my viewpoint quite but if this site still allowed for debate you would know by now that I am not completely against talking to Iran. The idea however that you can talk to Iran and condemn others for talking to Hamas is laughable since Iran is, by Obama's own assertion, the top fianancier of Hamas.
To seperate the two is indeed a foolish policy if you wish to make any headway in the region. One would wonder, if you are going to talk with Iran but leave there support for the Iraqi insurgents, Hamas and Hezbollah off the table then what exactly will you be talking about? It seems to me that Barack's policy towards Hamas amounts to Bush's policy towards Iran, "We'll talk to them via proxy". Feel free to hide this comment as well it a continued attempt to squash all questioning of Obama, the latest American idol
