Reply With Quote
Oh Noes! Teh appeasers will hand over Czechoslovakia!
US envoy to attend Iran-EU nuclear talks
By Roula Khalaf in Abu Dhabi and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Published: July 16 2008 04:08 | Last updated: July 16 2008 20:07
The Bush administration confirmed on Wednesday that it would send a top diplomat to a meeting with a senior Iranian negotiator this weekend – a US policy shift that European diplomats hope will encourage more flexibility from Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme.
William Burns, a US under-secretary of state, will join European, Russian and Chinese envoys and Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, in a meeting in Geneva on Saturday with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council.
The move represents a break with Washington’s long-stated policy that it would not sit down with Tehran before it suspends its uranium enrichment activities....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0dae2cd4-5...077b07658.html
I have three words for all the neocon internets tough guys who said the US should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to Iran:
L
O
L
Oh Noes! Teh appeasers will hand over Czechoslovakia!
Bush is an appeaser
Am I wrong?
I thought that it was president Bush that would not meet with anyone in Iran until the nuclear thing was settled. I don't recall any news about nobody meeting with them.
Maybe I missed the memo?
Who are neocons here? Surely you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.
Nice double negative to make your statement completely nonsensical. Regardless, you just got the news:
Nuclear thing not settled.
Meeting with them.
You have yet to disagree with any neocon policy, so the show fits.Who are neocons here? Surely you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.
U.S. diplomat to Iranian diplomat:
"So, how many missiles do you need?"
There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.
a "diplomat"
how about giving them incentives to stop enriching uranium? cuz that's what the under-secretary of state (an executive branch official in case you're wondering WC) is there to talk about.
Uh, yeah, we already had that one figured out. Perhaps you could explain this point to hysterical conservatives.
Nobody answeed my question:
The article said a cabinet member was meeting with them. Not the president.I thought that it was president Bush that would not meet with anyone in Iran until the nuclear thing was settled. I don't recall any news about nobody meeting with them.
Again, am I wrong?
Again, you are wrong.
Since when?
Since it's a Republican who's actually going to meet with the Iranians instead of a Democratic presidential candidate talking about possibly meeting with the Iranians concerning the same matters.
If he sent Cheney, you'd say the same thing: the president himself didn't go. You're a child.
Holy crap. If God Almighty himself had sent Bush himself to talk to the little dictator in Iran you all would be saying the same old crap. Bush Administration is not in negotiation with Iran. State sent someone over there to listen to his rantings and see what he had to say. No more, no less. So quit you talking like the Jackasses you are and see what happens. Or would you rather have a war.
dubya is doing nothing except trying to soften his failed policies in order to help Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating with cheap talk, empty gestures, smokescreen, window dressing. Totally deceitful and unserious. aka, dubya/Repug/neo-c*nt business as usual.
Iran isn't going to stop their nuclear program because some low-level diplomatic functionary shows up "to listen", a couple months before the end of dubya's 8 ed up years.
Actually, I'd be wondering why the Right was making such a big stink when Obama raised the possibility of talking with Iran. I don't care how or why the talks with Iran began and I don't really care who goes -- what's puzzling to me is how one side can be lambasted for raising that possibility while the other side is to be applauded for actually doing it.
Why won't anyone explain that disconnect to me?
because a valid explaination doesn't exist.
Oh, come now -- let's not be cynical. Surely there has to be a principled reason that talking to the Iranians as Obama's notion was appeasement while talking to the Iranians as Bush's policy is something more like brinksmanship.
An episode such as this is why I laugh at most conservatives. For the longest time they have gotten bywith using soundbites.Of course their minions repeat what they hear (see xray). For example, this case. When Obama brought this up the talk radio crowd ,and the like, (without thinking it through) lambasted Obama's statements. No thinking necessary just pile on.... Well now they have a problem because their hero is doing exactly what Obama suggested and they have painted themselves into yet another corner... When are you ladies ever going to learn?
you lost me at "principled".
Idiots! Obama said HE would meet with the little dictator. A whole lot of difference.
Of course I shouldn't say anything. The Messiah is going to Iraq and all the court jesters are going to be there to show the second coming. All the major networks are sending their anchors. But no bias in the media. None, zip, zilch, nope, none.
They sure would make a good target. But no sweat, the military they love to hate, will protect their sorry butts.
Actually there are valid reasons. One that I remember it that it legitimizes the leader in the world's eye for the sitting president to meet face to face. That is why there is a big difference if the president meets with someone, or if someone lesser meets with them.because a valid explaination doesn't exist.
4evah the apologist
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
