The Whiner-in-Chief Strikes Again
So, I am in Turkey and haven’t checked the news for a week or so. Then I decide to head on over to Memeorandum to see what’s happening in the world and, more specifically, in the United States. The first headline I see? “Obama: ‘McCain is losing his bearings’.” It is utterly amazing: you ignore American politics for one week and when you start paying attention to it you immediately see that… nothing has changed.
The man - if I’m allowed to call a whiner like that a man - just can’t stop whining. It’s pathological. For some reason he isn’t even ashamed of it. Whining, whining, whining. Always accusing the other side of playing dirty, while playing incredibly dirty oneself.
Obama is like the annoying little kid - greatly spoiled by his parents - who secretly hits another kid and then, when the other kids hits back, starts crying and calling for his mama.
O, and saying that Hamas prefers Obama isn’t a smear. It is a fact. And why does this terrorist organization support Obama? Because Obama has surrounded himself by anti-Israelites, perhaps even anti-Semites. Because the people who supported him early on in his career all believe that his recent public support for Israel isn’t heartfelt. On top of that, he is willing to talk to everyone who wants to destroy Israel and / or kill as many Americans as possible.
In short, Hamas knows that Americans will not elect someone who is passionately anti-Israel: Obama is the best they can do.
I will laugh my butt off when Obama becomes the president and when, four years later, many of those who support him now will say: but this isn’t what I voted for! I thought he was different, a better kind of politician.
No he’s not. And those who favor his style over Clinton’s style seemingly don’t see the obvious: Obama has become better at Clintonian politics than the Clintons are.
And no, that is not a compliment.
MY side of "these issues?" I’m suddenly the poster boy for everyone and everything you hate? Even in areas where I haven’t said a word? Uh huh.
I would stick to the substance of the single issue I was posting on, Jason, BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY THERE.
Well, get right on with your hatefest, I guess.
you’ll have to forgive me for not maintaining faith in the willingness of anti-Obamans here to change their minds as a result of discussions about their misinterpretations and misinformation.
If that’s an actual admission that perhaps you are reacting unfairly to me because you are aggravated by other Obama opponents’ tactics (including, presumably, a good deal of annoyance at Michael’s tactics for which I feel you have good reason) then I accept the apology.
Still, it doesn’t make it easy to have a productive discussion.
So far I found this summary, which I feel supports my version of an Iran that’s been recalcitrant about allowing inspections (again, I’m not just looking at information for the first time now- I’m going back with a more critical eye to read things I’ve seen before and see if you are correct when you assert that my understanding is inaccurate.) You may be right in saying that this doesn’t necessarily represent a complete negation of the generally held understanding about what is required for negotiations to take place, but to me it’s not at all clear that Iran is acceptant of a requirement of verifiability with regard to its nuclear program. Isn’t that what the IAEA is trying to work toward? Isn’t that what the UN security council resolution was about, and sanctions? And if the US isn’t satisfied that sufficient verifiability is in place, then why would top level direct negotiations make any sense?
Recalcitrance in the face of demands for additional inspections does not constitute an Iranian rejection of all current or future inspections regimes.
Yes, there is disagreement about what KINDS of inspections the Iranians would be held to. That is a subject that could only be resolved in negotiations. The Iranians obviously know that any "negotiations" would have an agenda item that included discussion of verification regimes.
There is no evidence that they have rejected the entire concept of verification. They have complained that current verification demands are too much for them to agree to, but that is far short of a complete rejection of all verification regimes.
In light of these facts, the blanket rejection of negotiations is bizarre. How could we ever even discuss what the Iranian objections are and find out what they MIGHT agree to without having negotiations? Also, the mere fact that they meet with the EU and and IAEA at all shows their willingness to negotiate the issue. And the fact that the Security Council found Iran in violation in 2005 shows that there are at least SOME inspections going on and that the dispute with Iran is about the SCOPE of inspections, not their EXISTENCE. At the point that Iran accepts ANY inspections, they clearly accept verification in principle. They just want to negotiate about its scope.
Verifiability is an OUTCOME of negotiations, not a precondition. If asserted as a precondition, then it makes negotiations a catch-22 since the precondition to negotiations could not be achieved except through negotiations. For the record, I disagree with the Iranian position, but believe that the ONLY practical way to move towards a more reasonable Iranian position begins with negotiations. Otherwise, all we get is the status quo — standoff — or a first-resort military assault that is extremely risky to say the least.
To link this back to the topic of this thread, there is ZERO evidence that the Obama proposal is just “taking their word for it”. I maintain and reiterate my (unrefuted) point that the Obama campaign is relying upon the NORMAL definition of “negotiations” in the same way that the EU and the IAEA are already doing with Iran’s participation.
Since this was posted 8 minutes AFTER I provided specific quotations in #50, I am going to assume you’re just hoping no one will notice that your oft-repeated bluff has been re-raised. You may now either rise to the challenge to provide a substantive response or you may fold your (weak) hand.
Verifiability is an OUTCOME of negotiations, not a precondition
But if the verifiability has already been tested and they’ve come up short (Iran actions weren’t in compliance with NPT-and then if I’m not mistaken they blustered quite a bit about their own interpretation of NPT and then insisted that their noncompliance shouldn’t have triggered a referral to the security council, and your own links show that they continue to propagandize internally about how the whole dispute is based on other countries’ political agendas instead of showing any admission that it was their own noncompliance with the BASIC verifiability tests of NPT that triggered the referral) then where does that leave us? As far as I’m concerned, that means that it’s perfectly appropriate to have certain channels of diplomacy still ongoing vis a vis IAEA, but for the US to precondition any face to face talks on having a verification procedure that won’t allow for lapses and clandestine weapons programs. You ask how we would know what Iran would agree to- we’ll know by what comes out in the IAEA negotiations and through other lower level diplomatic channels.
For all your complaints about people misstating Obama’s position, you seem to continue to conflate all of his opponents with some subgroup which doesn’t think that anyone, anywhere, should speak with the government of Iran.
To link this back to the topic of this thread, there is ZERO evidence that the Obama proposal is just “taking their word for it”.
I would agree that that’s not a fair characterization of his proposal (though I will again point out that it’s also fair to question what his proposal actually is, since one of his advisors is now denying that he ever said that he’ll meet face to face with Amadinajad.) But I think what the honest critics of Obama are saying is that we believe that there’s no point in negotiating the process of verifiability with a party that has already proven to be untrustworthy- since they’ve already broken the terms the previously signed onto.
Since this was posted 8 minutes AFTER I provided specific quotations in #50, I am going to assume you’re just hoping no one will notice that your oft-repeated bluff has been re-raised. You may now either rise to the challenge to provide a substantive response or you may fold your (weak) hand.
Done and done, and thank you very much for assigning some kind of blame on me for not monitoring two threads simultaneously. The octopus borrowed my other two hands. I’ve BEEN providing substantive response and begging for citations for quite a while, and received absolutely nothing but content-free near-psychotic vitriol in return, including copious personal insults. You must have been reading your Bizarro-world Dale Carnegie books.
WHINE WHINE WHINE…
Well, since I provided exactly the content you requested on the other thread in #50 and I provided links on this one (you are apparently blending the two threads completely now), clearly your claim that you "received absolutely nothing but content-free" in return is yet another falsehood on your part.
And since you are the only one on this thread to call someone else "near-psychotic", I don’t think you get to WHINE about "copious personal insults" either.
Nope. Gordon and Trainer, The Generals’ War.
Go cool down.
But I think what the honest critics of Obama are saying is that we believe that there’s no point in negotiating the process of verifiability with a party that has already proven to be untrustworthy- since they’ve already broken the terms the previously signed onto.
That would be my take. Then again, I do not assume that Obama is actually going to follow up on what he says. He may be saying it for other reasons. Politicians say many things while running for office that they do intend to actually do when they reach office. And that’s not all bad.