Iran pt 2...or how the Republicans learned Obama was right!

OK. In my last blog I posited that there would be future headlines about what Iran would get from the US in response to it's show of force. I didn't think it would come so soon.

Today, the Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on negotiations, sorry not negotiations, MEETINGS. After all negotiating with Iran would be appeasement like what Great Britain did to Hitler before the second world war, or so our President said. So the undersecretary is going to these "meetings" and reiterating our demand that Iran halt it's nuclear program…in exchange for not passing further sanctions against Iran. I know that sounds an awful lot like negotiations: You give me X and I'll give you Y. But it's not, because the President said so.

Of course, the talks did not achieve what the West hoped, but they will speak again in two weeks. (ap wire report)

Also, the US has moved ahead with plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran, something we haven't had since 1979. This is a precursor to reopening an Embassy there. Wow! That was quick. (Guardian UK)


So when Obama suggested that we meet with Iran, it was appeasement. He was an appeaser! Now the Bush Administration has shifted to Obama's position. Of course, this won't keep them from calling Obama an appeaser. Conservatives have never had a problem keeping two conflicting ideas in their heads and thinking both are true.

..

But if they decide not to seem all hypocritical, they could just go after him on his plan for troop withdrawal. Oops! No turns out the Administration is planning for a "time horizon" for "aspirational goals". You know, a timeline for troop withdrawal. So once again the administration shifts Obama's way. And like your significant other when they discover you were right in an argument and don't want to give you the satisfaction of admitting it, they've gone to calling it something different. And quibbling over semantics. From wikipedia: A time horizon, also known as a planning horizon, is a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_horizon). That sounds a lot like what we've been calling a timeline. But you say potato, I say bring our troops home.



This is why it's great to have a candidate who doesn't waver on his talking points, it's easier to show you were right when you keep saying the same thing over and over again. It also helps to be actually BE right.

So the administration is now in moved towards Obama on talking to Iran, and moved towards Obama on setting a timeline in Iraq. So why would you vote for McCain?

Those who don’t something, something history, something… it’s probably not important.

Talk about history repeating itself. Two years ago almost to the day (7/5/2006), North Korea test fired some missiles as a show of force. One aimed, though it fell far short, at Hawaii.

(source: CNN )

and here’s what the government said about it:

The United States strongly condemns North Korea's decision to defy international calls for restraint and proceed with the test launch of a series of ballistic missiles

"This provocative act violates a standing moratorium on missile tests to which the North had previously committed," the statement said. "Regardless of whether the series of launches occurred as North Korea planned, they nevertheless demonstrate North Korea's intent to intimidate other states by developing missiles of increasingly longer ranges."

(source: press release us embassy in Japan)

In fact, when North Korea was talking about doing missile tests we stepped up diplomacy in the months before and after. In fact, I blogged about it because it was strange we took this tact when we didn’t with Saddam, and even back then they were talking about regime change in Iran: ( my blog)

And that was a month before the actual tests.

The point is all this has happened before and it worked out pretty well for N. Korea:

We lifted the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to N. Korea, even though the president criticizes them pretty badly in his statement, why should they care, they get trade. (source: White House Press Release)

So, if we follow the steps:

• North Korea has a nuclear program
• 
  
• North Korea test fires a missile
• 
  
• US talks tough
• 
  
• US opens talks with North Korea and lifts sanctions.

NOW:

• Iran has a nuclear program
• 
  
• Iran test fires a missile
• US talks tough
• Therefore, …(waiting for article to be published later this year)

A child seeing another child getting attention for acting out, then he or she would also act out. It’s the way humans are. Can anyone blame Iran for what they’re doing? For that matter, considering how much the Republican party and it’s nominee talk about attacking (bomb, bomb, bomb) Iran, who could blame them for giving a show of force.

Granted Iran is run by a crazy person who thinks Israel doesn’t deserve to exist, and would be fine with all Jews dying. He’s not a person we want in charge of a powerful country, much less one with a nuke, so the sooner he’s gone, the better. But another occupation is not the answer.

I agree with the aggressive diplomacy Barack suggests. The surest way to ensure that Iran attacks someone, is to give them no other choice but to do so. Apparently talks worked with N. Korea (e.g.: we’re not at war). So why won’t it work with Iran? The best way to get people to embrace democracy, is to show them it’s not going to kill them. Literally.

Add avoiding war with Iran to the growing list of reasons not to vote for McCain.

Fake news...that seems so real

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency