High level meetings
Here was a big question last night. "Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries."
When I saw the YouTube clip, it seemed to me that the question might have been better phrased: "Would your administration hold high-level bilateral talks with these countries?" I believe that's how Barack Obama interpreted it when he answered that, yes, it would. Hillary Clinton, whether as a rhetorical stunt or because of a sincere difference in interpretation, retorted that she wouldn't promise to meet personally with the leaders of any of those countries. You be the judge. It seems to me that the best answer to her version of the question is "yes, I'd be willing to meet personally with those leaders personally but can imagine a host of circumstances under which I would delegate those duties to high-level officials in my administration." Which is basically what she said, except she also implied that an inexperienced politician like Obama might just hop a jet to Havana after a month or so in the White House, without having laid any diplomatic groundwork in advance. This is not, of course, anything like what Barack Obama suggested.
Mike Crowley disagrees: "It does seem that Barack Obama inadvisably indicated he would "be willing" to meet one-on-one with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuala during his first year in office. But that's not the same as promising that he definitely would meet with them....Bottom line: Great night for Hillary."
Comments
There is a diverge from the literal question that was asked, and the more general atmosphere about discussions/negotiations with what the US government perceives are hostile nations.
Hillary and Barak said what they said, but I think they had different ideas about the question that they perceived themselves answering. Hillary saw the literal meaning: You/I would meet in person only with preparation that ensured it wasn't just for propaganda. Obama saw the question in the context of Bush refusing to allow his agents to even talk to Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. He seemed to answer that Bush's view is dumb and needs to be reversed. But he didn't answer this way, but allowed that he, himself, would meet without preconditions. I give him props for the attitude but no-props for the actual answer which was a literal answer to a literal question.
The real news from the question was that the Dems will talk/negotiate with potential enemies, and Bush has to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing even limited discussions, with Cheney holding his coattails and tugging the other direction.
As for Hillary, she gave the media-friendly answer, but the wrong impression of her willingness to have actual diplomacy, which seemed to be too calculated to me. But that's Hillary.
What the world needs to hear is that the US is going to reverse the talk-tough/pre-emptive war approach and return to consensus international diplomacy with out allies and willingness to talk and reach agreement even with our opponents on the world stage. Neither Obama or Clinton made that clear, in fact there was far too little 'how I'd be different than Bush' than how I'm better as the Dem. candidate. Now, I realize this is a Dem. primary, but we Dems also have to sell our party and values to the more than party faithful.
Most alarming to me: no questions or statements on executive overreach/authoritarianism, incompent administration, terrible planning and political execution, shredding of Constitutional balance of powers, narrowing individual liberties, offenses against human decency (torture, rule of law), etc.
corrected typo: consensus international diplomacy with out allies
should be: consensus international diplomacy with our allies
[my aging eyes can't read gray on white in small type so well - LOL]
Post A Comment