11 March 2008

Barack, Raul, Mahmoud, Hugo, & Kim: Can't We All Just Get Along?

Image link

Last weekend we spoke with another Obama supporter--also a good friend--about his support for Obama. His biggest reason, as we understood it, was because Obama would speak diplomatically with some of America's biggest enemies: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Raul/Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il.

Our first response was disbelief at the naivete of the idea. What could be gained? How is there any advantage to that over the status quo? How would it change anything? Even Democratic party Big Sister thought his idea was ridiculous.

Intuitively, it makes no sense to lend the credibility and prestige of the office of US President (note: we're not conflating the office with its current occupant--and you shouldn't either) to tyrants and despots. Especially when those tyrants and despots actively oppose the interests of the US; when they develop WMD; when they promote terrorism; when their proxies kill American troops.

We're still solidifying our ideas about this topic and will write something later this week. In the meantime, we'd like to know your thoughts about Barack's proposed meeting with the world's worst. Write your comments and vote in the poll.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.


RD said...

In addition to your arguments, the Cold War has given us ample reason to reject such naive ideas as Obama's. When presidents talk to despotic world leaders who hate the US, the President ends up looking weak and foolish. It is not good for US soft power. Such meetings should only occur at the end of substantial negotiations, not at the beginning (as with Nixon/Kissinger's meeting in China). I would support the Secretary of State meeting with anybody that will meet with him/her, including Iran, but that is not the President's job.

Ben Treasure said...

Can I get some feedback on Reagan's famous, "Niet" comment when he met Gorbachev face to face? I thought that was a productive use of time spent in the presence of an enemy head of state.