Bush vs. Obama

So McCain is going after Obama, the sitting President! is going after Obama. And it looks to me like the Republicans are worried.

I figured I'd dive in with some thoughts to share and also collect some of yours. Nothing new or breaking here, just a small vent on my part.

"What is lost by talking with those with whom we disagree?"

Reasonable question. Decades of the ignore approach obviously haven't changed a thing in Cuba. Besides, isn't that what leaders of countries are supposed to do? You know, hash out our differences with adversaries?

PRESIDENT BUSH'S REPLIES

"What is lost by embracing a tyrant who puts people in prison for embracing their political beliefs?’’

Since when does direct dialog automatically equate to embracement?

"It will send the wrong message."

Yes, showing the world that we are finally being proactive in brining about change in Cube sends the wrong message.

"it would give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."

How incredibly arrogant.

"You know, I'm not suggesting there is never a time to talk. But I'm suggesting now is NOT the time NOT to talk with Raul Castro."

It's not the time not to talk? Yes! That's what I've been saying! OK, now I'll be serious and put the double negative aside. With a brand new leader now IS the time to talk and time is of the essence. If we set the tone that, no matter what, our relations are going to be the same shit - different day... HE will likely do the same.

"The decisions of the US President to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive"

I'm trying to come up with a deep and profound reply, but all my brain can produce is "WTF?" Talking is counterproductive and not talking is productive? The latter is the absence of action, thus, completely void of any productivity. This is not rocket surgery, nor is it brain science.

"It can send confusion about our foreign policy"

In writing this commentary I'm reminded of snippets from the Daily Show. Boy their writers have their work cut out for them. Not due to lack of material, but rather, information fricking overload!

•   Troll Rate Button (click here)

  by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:34:55 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it was Musharaff that Bush was.....

    talking about when he said....

    "The decisions of the US President (W) to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive"

    Or almost any other State leader who has ever had the misfortune to cross paths with the pathetic fuck.

    by rickeagle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM PDT

•  Opposite Bush.

  Whatever bush says, I believe the opposite is absolutely true.

  Therefore I am an Obama supporter.

  by rudewarrior on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:35:16 PM PDT

•  Yes...I'm tired of living...

  In Bizarro World.

  by mayan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM PDT

•  the ultimate repudiation of bush

  is the election of senator obama.

  george bush knows this more than anyone.  he will do everything he can (create ineternational crisis, terror alerts etc.) to help mccain win.  he also would prefer clinton over obama because that would keep it in the family.

  by maxnyc on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:40:43 PM PDT

  •  Yes

     he also would prefer clinton over obama because that would keep it in the family.

    Which is why the election of Hilary would have much the same consequences (maybe worse) than the election of McCain.

    by Demena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM PDT

•  forget arrogant

  it's not even coherent. W "embraces" Musharraf, Prince Saud, Putin, and any number of other dictators with questionable rights records.

  Hell, W himself send people to prison forever without a hearing. Does he therefore refuse to talk to himself?

  by theloniously on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:44:56 PM PDT

•  The POPE has been to Cuba

  Back in 1998.

  Time for fresh thinking.

  As soon as we went over there, it would be either
          1) over
          2) chinese style capiltalism

  Great for both countries that we finally have someone ready to be reasonable.

  by furiouschads on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM PDT

  •  linkie

    urgh...

    by furiouschads on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

•  "The decisions of the US president . . .

  to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive".

  A few possible readings here.

  1. He could be referring to "certain international figures" -- i.e. celebrities -- Daddy Yanqui or David Hasselhoff.  I understand Bush had a discussion last week with rocker Bob Geldolf -- so maybe this isn't what he means.

  2. "Counterproductive" when he could be doing more "productive" things like riding his bike, playing video golf with one of the twins, or taking naps.  

  Of course someone might say that he could initiate discussions at a lower level to at least lay the ground work for "productive" negotiations.  But maybe that's not something that he's interested in doing.

  3. My final surmise is that maybe Bush thinks talking with international leaders emboldens the terrorists.  I'm not sure how he would come to this conclusion, but given Bush's ability to psychoanalyze our adversaries -- e.g. "they're vicious killers," "they hate us because of our freedom" -- maybe he's onto something.

  Just some guesses.

  One of my favorite Bushisms was when he said after the 2004 election that he had "earned some political capital and I intend to spend it".  Note he didn't say "invest" -- he said "spend" and meant "spend" as in "squander".  

  I think it's safe to say in that case, he meant exactly what he said.

  by NotGeorgeWill on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM PDT

•  Well...

  Since when does direct dialog automatically equate to embracement?

  Since Munich, I suppose. When has direct dialog with a modern tyrant had good results?

  Yes, showing the world that we are finally being proactive in brining about change in Cube sends the wrong message.

  What does proactive mean? Conceding something for promises?

  How incredibly arrogant.

  If, as you seemingly believe, it's just arrogant for the U.S. to think it confers a certain cache by holding formal talks with a country, i.e. that there is no such cache, then what does it matter if they're not held?

  With a brand new leader now IS the time to talk...[emp mine]

  What about Raul Castro is brand new to you? He's been in the forefront as long as his brother, and by some accounts, is much worse. Do you contend he has been a democratic seedling all this time, just waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to water him?

  by valion on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM PDT

  •  Well...

    When has direct dialog with a modern tyrant had good results?

    Just off the top of my head... last year when North Korea finally agreed to shut down their Nuclear programs? Was George Bush embracing Kim Jong-il?

    There's no doubt that having dialog is not a magic wand, and in many cases it reaps little or no progress. But NOT talking and falling back on labels "axis of evil" has had an opposite effect.

    What does proactive mean? Conceding something for promises?  

    It could. Or it may not. "If you let your political prisoners go free, we will lift a small portion of our economic sanctions. If you also do this and that, we will do more".

    Talks MAY end with no results whatsoever. If it does, so what? At least we tried and perhaps we can continue to try.

    If, as you seemingly believe, it's just arrogant for the U.S. to think it confers a certain cache by holding formal talks with a country, i.e. that there is no such cache, then what does it matter if they're not held?

    I'm not understanding your "cache" metaphor, but I think I understand where you're going with this. The US being an enormous economic and military powerhouse certainly can have influence. But that does NOT mean simply talking to them gives them "great status", like driving a Porsche.

    What about Raul Castro is brand new to you? He's been in the forefront as long as his brother, and by some accounts, is much worse. Do you contend he has been a democratic seedling all this time, just waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to water him?

    Cuba Signs UN Rights Pacts Fidel Castro Opposed

    I change my mind. We should ignore this guy.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:34:05 AM PDT

  •  BTW, I wasn't mocking your title

    I just realized when I hit send my reply title is exactly the same as yours.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:42:20 AM PDT

    •  No problem. Even were it otherwise, I handle

      mocking well.

      by valion on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:46:11 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      There is some contention re Kim's actions re words.

      What makes you think such quid pro quo conversations are not occurring? Maybe they just haven't been leaked to the NYT yet.

      Well, if you told Hollywood insiders that you and John Cameron were working on a picture deal, that might have cache.  If you told them you were talking with Ben Afleck, not so much.  You seemed to imply the U.S. is passé as a negotiating partner. Perhaps you should conduct a survey among heads of state: Would you rather have a photo-op in the Oval Office or a new Porche. I suggest those who take the Porche are not our friends, irrespective of administration.

      Since when has Cuba ever had a problem with the UN, and vice versa?

      by valion on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:08:33 PM PDT