So apparently Jessica McBride’s frothing at the mouth about some comments made by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at the National Association of Black Journalists’ Convention. Before I share Obama’s remarks, it’s important to note his comments were given to presumably clarify a response h egave during the CNN/YouTube debate, in which a viewer asked candidates if they would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, all of whom the U.S. government has labeled rogue leaders. In response to that question, Obama said he would, adding “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” Obama added, “the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.”
So taking his answer at the CNN/YouTube debate into consideration, while speaking at the NABJ Obama characterized criticisms of his previous answer as a debate on whether our government should or shouldn’t talk to our enemies without any preconditions. Obama acknowledged conventional thinking would seem to fall on the side of not talk with our enemies, a fact Obama voiced his opposition to, stating, “I profoundly disagree with that. My belief is that I’m not afraid to talk to anybody. And I think that the president of the United States should be willing to meet with anybody.”
Apparently Miss McBride wants to know if the “anyone” Senator Obama mentioned includes Al-Qaida. What I’d like to ask Miss McBride is if she’s okay with Republicans meeting with “anyone,” since they seem to have a history of doing just that. After all, who can forget once and future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1983?
And who can forget President Bush 41 signing a policy directive proposing ”normal” relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability?
The reality here is that Senator Obama’s revelation that he’d meet with “anyone” isn’t anything that Republicans and Democrats alike haven’t done before.
Dude, stop making a fool of yourself! We happened to be in an undeclared war with Iran, we had to pick an ally. Also I would like to point out that George H. w. Bush happened to be president when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Maybe he had to sign a temporary deal with Iraq but in no way did it help him because we destroyed most of his military power in the Gulf War and that it was other nations (France, Germany, Russia, and others) that defied the UN mandates and traded military related item with Hussein. Barrack is being attack by the current administration because they are walking a fine line with Pakistan, they can’t afford to lose this vital nation’s support. Hopefully, when you start taking HS history classes, you’ll be able to connect the dots and not be so ready to point fingers (especially at Republicans only).
A Historian
“Historian,” I’d love to hear your explanation for why we had to pick an ally in the Iran-Iraq conflict, and while you’re at it, I’d love to hear why it was a great idea to sell Saddam helicopters:
Or maybe you can tell me why it was such a good idea to give our “ally” all the makings of biological weapons:
However, even if I give you your point that we had to make a deal with Saddam in the interests of stopping Iran, I fail to understand why we had to give him biological materials he later turned into weapons. I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Edit: Oh, and “Historian?” I don’t need a lecture on history from you, because I’m old enough to remember the first Gulf War quite well, having had family members who served on active duty during that conflict.