Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Res ipsa loquitor
In matters of foreign policy, at least, Nancy Pelosi leaves no doubt where she stands:
The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.
"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''
Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria.
"I find the president of Iran's remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior,'' Pelosi said, referring to Ahmadinejad's past comments that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.
"But a person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience is saying that -- even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran -- it's important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes.''
Indeed it does.
18 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 10, 11:19:00 PM:
Read: No matter what Ahmedenijad says or does, we'll never stop talking to him.
By 
, at
Wed Apr 11, 12:06:00 AM:
SAN FRANCISCO the city of traitors BOYCOTT SAN FRANCISCO
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Wed Apr 11, 02:21:00 AM:
Wow, Godwin's law rears its ugly head, and not even in the comments section -- it's already in in the post!
Actually, recognizing that Iran is NOT Nazi Germany is important -- the mullahs can only dream of Hitler's extent of power over his people. Iran is more fractured and varied than we give it credit for. Talking to them will reflect those differences, leading, perhaps, to an Iran that's more amendable to Tigerhawk readers (i.e., not reflexively anti-American).
It's not appeasement to follow such a strategy.
DU
By , at
Wed Apr 11, 03:23:00 AM:
Who do you consider the "hostile party", SJ? Your current FUD calling Ahmedinejad a "clown" does not disguise your consistent idolization of Iran and its acolytes (Hizbullah, Hamas etc.) and demonization of America and Israel.
As for "Godwin's Law", Mechanical Eye, it's not Godwin's Law when you're talking about people who actually deny the Holocaust. Yeah, Ahmedinejad is just a powerless figurehead, or so you and SJ keep telling us to try to whitewash this brutal, oppressive regime. And you even contadict yourself, after claiming that he doesn't represent the people of Iran, you say "[T]alking to them will reflect those differences ...". But we won't be talking to them, we (or Pelosi and Lantos, they don't speak for me) will be talking to Ahmedinejad, who will then use them to give more credibility to himself and his regime, at the expense of the Iranian people, just like he used the British hostages and Assad already used Pelosi and Lantos. Their trips are not causing any "dialogue", they are only serving to prop up slimeballs like Assad and Ahmedinejad.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 11, 06:31:00 AM:
SJ and others,
I am not opposed to "talking with" hostile parties. Indeed, I am certainly not opposed to "talking with" Iran, and even the Bush administration has done so. That does not mean that we should "talk with" Ahmadinejad. Saying that we should do so simply shows every other extremist -- Pelosi's term "outside ... civilized human behavior" is apt, actually -- that there really is nothing they can say or do that will cost them the opportunity of treating with the United States. Obviously, I think it is an asinine point of view. Worse, even if one thinks it one should not say it. It is certainly not to our advantage if we declare, a priori, that there is nothing a foreign leader can do or say that will cost them a seat at our table.
By the way, a footnote on the politics of the matter for those partisans out there: Lantos' and Pelosi's statements were entirely unnecessary, and only reinforce the public's sneaking suspicion that the Democrats are weak on national security. An entirely unforced error, in my opinion.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 11, 08:57:00 AM:
SJ - there is a very plausible reason why dialog with Iranian leadership -- and I define that regime-wide, not just A-jad (who was in effect appointed by Khamenei, the undisputed leader of the theocracy) -- has limits. Quite simply, they have demonstrated repeatedly they do not negotiate in good faith. Forget for a moment what we think of them (we have a full spectrum of views), consider what they think of us and what they articulate about us in the clearest terms. They describe us as the Great Satan, their enemy. And they assert the supriority of their Islamic culture to ours.
So dialog can be helpful in managing thru an immediate crisis (like the seizure of the 15 sailors) but is ultimately fruitless in achieving a longer term modus vivendi. They don't want one.
I would point to the fruitless effort we made with Arafat as a fine example of negotiating with somebody who never intended to achieve a modus vivendi with Israel. It was a temporary cease fire within a longterm objective f eliminating Israel (for Arafat).
So dialog with Iran, in my judgment, has its limits as long as it is led by a Khomeinist, theocratic regime. And if they insist on interfering with our strategic interests repeatedly, in time we will defeat and eliminate them. It will either happen bloodlessly (like the fall of the USSR), where their system simply implodes, or we will have to use force.
By , at
Wed Apr 11, 11:21:00 AM:
I think everyone here is missing the key issue:
What kind of Latin education did TigerHawk get? "Loquitor???" Pshaw. Ahh, to be pedantic in a blog post - one of life's little pleasures.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 11, 11:25:00 AM:
I believe that my readers understand that I suck at spelling. But if you Google "loquitor" it is indeed a common error.
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 11, 03:10:00 PM:
I think we have to cut TH some slack on the Latin typos. So maybe he wasn't Salutatorian in his class at PU. He's probably too far removed from law school to have any strong recollection of all of that fancy sounding stuff, anyway.
The post raises the question of whether it is more important for U.S. politicians to be seen as willing to negotiate with Iran for purposes of domestic political consumption as compared to Iranian politicians being seen as hard line with the West, but selectively benevolent (releasing the 15 Brits) for purposes of their domestic political consumption.
As others have pointed out in other threads, there are always lower profile contacts going on between the two countries, so it kind of a moot point to say that we need to be talking. The question is at what level the talks should take place.
As to TH's "unforced error" point, Pelosi and Lantos have, I think, made a calculation that a narrow majority of the electorate, and their entire base, wants to see high profile discussions with hostile leaders, for better or worse. I doubt either the Clinton or Obama campaign had a problem with it. Lantos was there for a reason, as Pelosi states -- a Central European born Holocaust survivor willing to talk to a national leader who blithely talks about removing Israel from the face of the earth -- you don't get much better political cover than that. It's as if you had Native American activist Russell Means lobbying on behalf of the NFL Washington franchise to say to the public that the name is no big deal.
I agree with CP's point in another thread that the current Iranian regime looks like it could be one good right cross away from a TKO. If the EU had stood with the UK two weeks ago and imposed harsh economic sanctions over the 15 Brits, that might have done it. Perhaps the various Iranian ambassadors to the EU member nations were sending signals that it wasn't necessary to play hardball and that the prisoners would be released shortly.
There does not appear to be much will, if any, in the West to resist Iran's inexorable march to nuclear power and presumably a nuclear weapon. Bush has 21 months left to act, and, depending upon your view, he is either unbound (since he is CIC and won't run for office again) or very constrained by low approval ratings and a hostile Congress.
I happen to be of the view that a President Hillary Clinton will be a "Warrior Queen" in every part of the world except Iraq. She will satisfy her base by getting troops out of there. Assuming the military is no longer "broken" in 2009, I would expect in years after that to see U.S. forces in Darfur, reinforced in parts of former Yugoslavia, possibly Zimbabwe, possibly Sri Lanka, and any number of places where humanitarian disasters are taking place in a part of the world where U.S. strategic interests are not on the line. How would she react to a 10 kt test nuke in Iran in May 2009? How will Israel react? How will the people who are part of Hillary's base and who also are Jewish react?
My late mother, who was a Roman Catholic (and was, like Lantos, Hungarian) but had a Jewish step-father, had a favorite Jewish joke:
Two Israeli pilots were shot down over Egypt during the 1973 war and captured. They are informed by an Egyptian Colonel that they are to be executed the following morning in the desert.
The next morning, the pilots are handcuffed and blindfolds are about to be put in place, and the Colonel asks the first pilot if he has any last requests.
The first pilot says, "So would it be too much to ask to have a cigarette?"
The Colonel gives him a cigarette and lights it for him.
The execution squad of 6 privates is cocking their weapons.
The Colonel asks the second pilot if he has any last requests.
The second pilot says nothing and spits in the Egyptian Colonel's face.
The first pilot says to the second one, "Harry! Don't make trouble!"
Is anyone in the Democratic leadership that can be the second pilot?
By , at
Wed Apr 11, 03:46:00 PM:
I agree, bringing Rep. Tom Lantos to Tehran would be priceless. It was good to see this 'Holocaust survivor' (code word for we all know who) in the halls of power in "the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria". He would look at least just as good in Iran, I'm sure.
Perhaps while in Tehran, Rep. Lantos can advocate other causes dear to him, for "he supports gay marriage rights and marijuana for medical use, is a strong proponent of gun control and is adamantly pro-choice."
Alas, it is (most likely) not to be. As the article states, "Lantos said that for more than a decade, he has been trying to obtain a visa to visit Tehran with the help of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- and to date neither he nor any other member of Congress has been successful." But we can always imagine...
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 11, 05:13:00 PM:
SJ -
I am a bit confused. Are you saying that A-jad won a straight-up election fair and square, and that true reform candidates had a real shot at winning? Can you give me a good analogy in the West?
What does "not fully democratic" mean?
Are U.S. presidential elections fully democratic (taking into consideration the Electoral College, and the chance that a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the EC) in your view?
Was Truman a fully democratically elected president or was he a puppet under the control of party back-room bigwigs (essentially how he was chosen to be VP candidate under FDR in 1944 when the party had had enough of previous VP Henry Wallace)?
Finally, what is your sense of how secure the Iranian regime is right now?
Thanks.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Apr 11, 08:10:00 PM:
I'm not any Mid East expert, just a lowly, newly minted public school teacher. But, I do try to follow current events. During Iran's last "presidential election", didn't a lot of reform-minded Iranians boycott the election because the only candidates that got past the mullahs were too hardline? Doesn't really give me warm fuzzies to think Amanutjob was elected as "the will of the Iranians people"...
By , at
Wed Apr 11, 09:15:00 PM:
"You know the people here who think that Islam is evil? They have counterparts in Iran who think that Jews and Americans are evil."
wow, just wow
no moral equivalence here
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Apr 11, 11:00:00 PM:
I for one, would be absolutely tickled pink to have Pelosi, Lantos and Murtha go visit Iran and attempt to negotiate with their president. They certainly are not attempting to negotiate with ours, and they might as well be doing something useful with their time. In addition, I would suggest that they spend sufficient time in Iran to really soak up the culture and leave no stone unturned, say 444 days perhaps?
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Apr 11, 11:21:00 PM:
SJ~
My point is this:
If not everyone is equally able to compete for votes (e.g.- anyone can decide "Hey, I want to run for President of Iran!" and be able to be placed on the ballot by meeting some reasonable requirements, such as number of signatures on a petition, paying the required filing fees), it is by definition NOT a "free election". Our system is far from perfect (to run for President, you now must raise MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions), but there is no government authority arbitarily deciding who is or is not worthy of throwing their hat into the ring. And there is certainly no equivilent in America of those in Iran "who think that Jews and Americans are evil". In Iran, those are the people who control the government. There are Americans who think Islam is evil, but they cannot decide for themselves what government will or will not do: they are just like any other group in America who can only attempt to influence those in power to their own point of view.
By , at
Thu Apr 12, 03:23:00 AM:
"Now, run along, the grown ups are talking."
I expected no less from SJ, an ad hominem attack since he couldn't answer me. Explain once again, if you really think Ahmedinejad is a bad guy, how congressional delegations flocking to him do *not* boost his position and prestige.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Apr 12, 04:55:00 PM:
I'm willing to bet that if the mullahs were truly dissatisfied with Amanutjob's job performance, he'd be gone in a nanosecond. The fact that he's still there implies tacit approval for his conduct, regardless of when the next scheduled election is. He could very easily "have a heart attack" and be replaced with someone more to their liking. Iran is a theocratic police state.
By , at
Fri Apr 13, 03:09:00 AM:
SJ, I didn't know you had such a vivid fantasy life! :^)
