Is it disturbing that The Weekly Standard/Neo-Cons loved Hillary's answer about foreign dictators?

[TeamJordan23]

From Neo-Con Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard:

There was a key moment, however, and once again it pitted Clinton, the New York senator, against Barack Obama, her counterpart from Illinois. The question was whether they'd promise to meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

"I would," Obama said, foolishly showing his inexperience, and perhaps his naivete as well, in foreign affairs. After all, he said, President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and still talked to Soviet leaders. "I think it's a disgrace we haven't talked" to leaders of the five anti-American countries, Obama said.

Clinton benefited from getting to answer after Obama, and she made the most of it. She said, firmly and coolly, that she wouldn't promise to meet with them. Clinton said the new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything "that would make the situation worse." Before any meeting, she'd have to know "what the way forward would be."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/912othxq.asp

[Dawgs]

1. Of course, Hillary has supported Bush's foreign policy more than most in Congress.

[Tellurian]

27. It amazes me how little Obama knows about US history..

and how previous administrations operated under preordained protocols that have been in place for 100 yrs. You'd think a man running for president would be knowledgeable of the presidents before him, what their policies were, gleaning the good out of them for his own ideas on his administration.

We're looking atObama-Lite!

[youngdem]

2. Clinton and AIPAC are close....Not surprising at all.

[OHdem10]

3. Her answer was directed squarely at them and the Media.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Obama would actually do the same thing if he were president.

I actually agree with the article that Obama's response was born of naivete. To me there's no question that Obama would get briefed about the same propaganda risk by his advisors and would proceed in the same manner. He just didn't know that that's what you would do.

[Soulshine]

11. I think this is silly.

Any President would send envoys first. Of course he's not just gonna pick up the phone and ask them out for coffee. The difference is Obama said he'd make it a priority to get into talks with these countries by the end of his first year! I don't think that's naive, I think it's necessary. I don't want a president that's so scared of how they're gonna look, that they're not willing to be hands on with countries we don't agree with. That's what Clinton's response was to me. I don't want to get hurt, I don't want to be made to look silly, I don't want to be a victim! That's weak. It's weaker how she's attacking him after the fact. If you're the President of the USA you're gonna be used for propaganda purposes.

The idea that we have the right to ask for preconditions to be met before we "GIFT" a country with the chance to talk to us is the same arrogance that kept us in Iraq after we ACCOMPLISHED what we "supposedly" went there to do. If we wanted to depose a dictator and give Iraq sovereignty then we did that the day they wrote a constitution and had elections. If we wanted to weasel a deal for oil because they owed us and have a safe haven for Western Ideals in the middle east, then we're no better than Iran or Syria. Either way not making it a top priority to talk to these leaders and discuss the part they're playing in this mess and the responsibility of everyone to fix it, but to instead worry more about your image which is already shit, cause you're an American, isn't very presidential to me.

As for the others, our social and economic policies in those regions are part of the reason they're in power now, including Chavez who is dismantling any semblance of democracy or freedom for the people in Venezuela. Our President should be on the front lines for these important diplomatic missions.

[earthlover]

12. Su I agree! Dialogue with our enemies is not naive, it is a position of strength

Did anyone call Nixon naive for opening dialogue with Red China, one of our mortal enemies at the time?

Did anyone call Reagan naive for talking with Russia, part of the "evil empire"?

General Wes Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO, a man with impeccable credentials and experience, would hardly be called naive or weak when it comes to foreign policy. Yet Clark advocates dialogue with Syria, Iran, Korea....

It is sad. When Obama says a similar thing it is called naive (maybe because the press and his rivals want to paint him as inexperienced....) but if Clark had been there in the debate saying the same thing (probably more eloquently, to be fair to Clark) he would NOT be called naive. He would be speaking about the need for dialogue with authority.

Which of course is a reason why I wish Clark were running. However, let's call a spade a spade. What Obama said was spot on! We DO need dialogue.

Hillary hedged, hemmed and hawed about whether she would talk with our enemies. Sheez, part of preventing wars is diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't happen just in a room full of friends. How naive a thought would THAT be!? Yet, that is apparently the line of "reasoning" from the Hillary brigade. Of course, they operate from a position of weakness and fear that somehow it will be interpreted the wrong way if they talk.

I recall that Ho Chi Minh originally patterned many of his ideas on AMerican ideals. So did Castro, for that matter. What a sad thing to consider how establishing dialogue with these folks could have changed history.

Anyhow, don't look on Hillary to have the strength to establish dialogue. She has to act tough instead of showing strength.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Do you even know what this debate is about? n/t

[earthlover]

14. yes

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

18. He's basically gone back and said so himself. n/t

[earthlover]

23. Oh really? Where's your quote or link?

[LoZoccolo]

26. I might have looked for such a thing for someone who treated me politely. n/t

[Soulshine]

34. here is your quote

By Wednesday, Obama struck back, passionately and without backing down. Granting an interview with NBC News, he said:

“I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out—and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.

”The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

“Now, they may not like what we want to hear—so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what’s necessary to protect them—that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time…

”But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on—and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that…

“That ultimately is what’s going to create the environment in which we can reduce some of the threat levels we are facing. To fail to do that is the same conventional Washington thinking that led many including Senator Clinton to go ahead with the war without having asked adequate questions.”

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billyoc]

6. Deeply disturbing.

Not in the least bit surprising, however. Neo-liberals and Neo-conservatives complement each other quite nicely.
They are not atagonistic in the slightest. That's why they share the same campaign resources and funding.

[Colobo]

7. I bet Bill Kristol is proud of her.

[killbotfactory]

8. Apparently, It's naive to seek peace with your enemies

[laugle]

9. Hillary's answer was quick, concise, and to the point!

Obama should drop this one like a "hot potatoe!"It just furthers the notion that he is too inexperienced to be president!

IMO, when a person lacks experience in anything in life, they just don't have the frame of reference to draw on........

[earthlover]

16. Ah....the Dan Quayle spelling of the word "potato"....HA!

So, Mr Quayle, you have a lot of experience, and a frame of reference to draw on, but you still can't spell!

[laugle]

20. Actually....my

spelling is excellent and I never use spell check, but I'm sure you can make that point elsewhere, HA

[earthlover]

22. Dan Quayle may have thought his spelling was excellent too...

....and he obviously didn't use spell check. But it's NOT spelled "potaTOE" nonetheless.

[Soulshine]

29. I can't spell either and I have an I.Q. of over 150

(not that I'm bragging or anything, that just means I can recognize patterns well). Actually it can be spelled both ways, but potato is the more popular spelling of the time. This came out during that whole hoopla about nothing. Not to defend Dan, he was still an idiot.

[laugle]

31. Hey ...you got

me there....potato.....potato...

You are going to be very busy being the spelling police around here...

Now go and do something productive....

End of story......

[Soulshine]

33. well you were the one being the spelling police

I was more like the spelling public defender. And if either one of us had something more productive to do, this thread wouldn't exist. no worries.:+

[Hippo_Tron]

24. And I think we all know the appropriate response to Dan Quayle when he talks about experience

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Out of curiosity, is it time for the human race to enter the solar system?

Are we on an irreversable trend toward more freedom and democracy that could change?

Are teachers the only profession that teach our children?

Is space still a high priority for NASA?

Do Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child?

Are we going to have the best educated American people in the world?

Will the future be better tomorrow?

Someone criticizing Obama for his lack of experience should be able to answer these questions I hope.

[Forkboy]

10. It warms the heart.

[David Zephyr]

17. Fred Barnes understands that his boss (Murdoch) likes the Clintons.

Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard and Fox where Barnes is a "star" (or a racoon according to Roger Ailes). Barnes is a suck-up for Murdoch. He despises the Clintons.

[madrchsod]

19. no -standard answer to please the masses

i asked this before---define "dicator".

[BenDavid]

21. Excuse me but did not President Clinton

hold to the same as HRC suggested? Right, he did....a president cannot call some dicator into the Oval Office for a meeting not knowing what the hell they will even discuss. If nothing comes of this meeting then the benefits fall to the dictator.....

Do you ever wonder how President Clinton received a standing ovation of the United Nations? Could be that he instructed his folks to contact these heads of states and have a conversation and see how thigns were and if there was any presing matters they needed to work out....I am of the understanding that President Clinton did a lot of talking to these leaders afterwards....

HRC was correct in her response. Obama steps again into an argument with HRC and again comes away empty....This is the third time Obama lost.

I do thank you
Ben David

[wyldwolf]

28. As did John Edwards and Joe Biden

[maximusveritas]

32. Yes, her fellow Iraq War supporters approve. Good to know n/t

[Grandrose]

30. Kiss of death?

Just saw that McCain and Romney agree with Sen. Clinton and now it appears the whole NeoCon Repub establishment is backing her...whatsup!

What was that about "changing the direction"?:shrug: