James Baker won’t be sticking up for McCain’s take on diplomacy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In Republican foreign policy circles, you can't really get more "serious" than former Secretary of State James Baker. His record for partisanship is unquestioned — Baker did, after all, oversee the 2000 Florida recount on behalf of George W. Bush — but after serving as Secretary of State and chairman of the Iraq Study Group, Baker's perspective carries quite a bit of weight and credibility within the DC establishment.

With that in mind, this October 2006 clip of Baker on Fox News talking about diplomacy has been making the rounds the past few days.

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies," Baker said. "You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

Obviously, given the context, this had nothing to do with the debate between Obama and McCain. Baker's interview was a year and a half ago. The point, though, is that the conservative approach to international affairs has been equating diplomacy with "appeasement" for quite some time. The right said it about Reagan talking to Russia; the right said it about Nixon talking to China.

Asked about the clip, John McCain — who, last week, endorsed Bush's "appeasement" talk with some enthusiasm — said Baker only talked with adversaries who seemed open to changing their tactics. "When Secretary Baker was secretary of state, they didn't talk to Castro. They had a very strict position on whether to negotiate with him or not," McCain said.

That's partially true, but incomplete.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[HAL 9000 96]

... after a careful review of James Baker's cell phone we found the following speed dial entries...

1-800-OBL-DUDE

1-800-AL QAEDA

surely, this is another terrorist sympathizer willing to appease dangerous countries to our belovedly fragile national security.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

... after a careful review of James Baker's cell phone we found the following speed dial entries...

1-800-OBL-DUDE

1-800-AL QAEDA

surely, this is another terrorist sympathizer willing to appease dangerous countries to our belovedly fragile national security.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

bump.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

bump.

What? No comment from the saber rattling crowd?

[HAL 9000 96]

bump.

What? No comment from the saber rattling crowd?

They're too happy relishing Hagee's acceptance of McCain's rejection "for the better of America."

[alienlovechild 75]

A cartoon of Obama taking the oath of office with the photo of a grinning chimp. If you guys are Obama supporters he better get new ones soon.

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies," Baker said. "You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

Obama is neither tough nor has he ever demonstrated he knows what he's doing on foreign policy. He's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he's done nothing of note or you would have heard about it by now.

"The point, though, is that the conservative approach to international affairs has been equating diplomacy with "appeasement" for quite some time. The right said it about Reagan talking to Russia; the right said it about Nixon talking to China."

Nixon and Reagan had a long track records being anti-communist; therefore, it was believed they would tough in talks with China and Russia. Obama has no reputation beyond his eagerous to talk with nasty leaders unconditionally then lie about it later.

I'm curious. Do any Obama supporters have a clue what Obama's position is on Iraq or Afghanistan? That sounds easy but when I asked Kerry supporters online in 2004 what his policies were all I got was stuff about Bush's failures.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm curious. Do any Obama supporters have a clue what Obama's position is on Iraq or Afghanistan? That sounds easy but when I asked Kerry supporters online in 2004 what his policies were all I got was stuff about Bush's failures.

Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq.

[alienlovechild 75]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm curious. Do any Obama supporters have a clue what Obama's position is on Iraq or Afghanistan? That sounds easy but when I asked Kerry supporters online in 2004 what his policies were all I got was stuff about Bush's failures.

Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq.

Well to be fair I think it boils down to "stay in Iraq and leave Iraq."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

Hey, hats off to bloggers like Steve Benen who actually cite their sources, and thank God (or Al Gore) for the blogosphere.

Although it may be convenient to classify all who have decided to support or endorse Obama as doing so for the same, narrowly defined reasons, I can only speak for myself. The choice has been narrowed down to two candidates - McCain and Obama (although some are still hanging out hope for Hillary). McCain for the last 8 years has aligned himself with GW Bush and his policies, which, IMO and about 80 percent of the population, believe have been a miserable failure, and so I'm betting on the best horse left...Obama. This is the political system we've got...and you support your candidate with whatever lumps that come with them. Obama will win in November and he'll win decisively. If Hillary were the nominee, I'd say the same thing. Eight years of the Bush Administration has pretty much sealed the deal for voters...and you can take that to the bank.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

Hey, hats off to bloggers like Steve Benen who actually cite their sources, and thank God (or Al Gore) for the blogosphere.

Although it may be convenient to classify all who have decided to support or endorse Obama as doing so for the same, narrowly defined reasons, I can only speak for myself. The choice has been narrowed down to two candidates - McCain and Obama (although some are still hanging out hope for Hillary). McCain for the last 8 years has aligned himself with GW Bush and his policies, which, IMO and about 80 percent of the population, believe have been a miserable failure, and so I'm betting on the best horse left...Obama. This is the political system we've got...and you support your candidate with whatever lumps that come with them. Obama will win in November and he'll win decisively. If Hillary were the nominee, I'd say the same thing. Eight years of the Bush Administration has pretty much sealed the deal for voters...and you can take that to the bank.

There you go again. That check you want to cash when Obama wins will bounce. Obama hasn't a clue when it comes to the world. That much is becoming more clear by the day.

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

Hey, hats off to bloggers like Steve Benen who actually cite their sources, and thank God (or Al Gore) for the blogosphere.

Although it may be convenient to classify all who have decided to support or endorse Obama as doing so for the same, narrowly defined reasons, I can only speak for myself. The choice has been narrowed down to two candidates - McCain and Obama (although some are still hanging out hope for Hillary). McCain for the last 8 years has aligned himself with GW Bush and his policies, which, IMO and about 80 percent of the population, believe have been a miserable failure, and so I'm betting on the best horse left...Obama. This is the political system we've got...and you support your candidate with whatever lumps that come with them. Obama will win in November and he'll win decisively. If Hillary were the nominee, I'd say the same thing. Eight years of the Bush Administration has pretty much sealed the deal for voters...and you can take that to the bank.

There you go again. That check you want to cash when Obama wins will bounce. Obama hasn't a clue when it comes to the world. That much is becoming more clear by the day.

Clear to you, perhaps. That isn't much help unfortunately for the rest of us here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

Hey, hats off to bloggers like Steve Benen who actually cite their sources, and thank God (or Al Gore) for the blogosphere.

Although it may be convenient to classify all who have decided to support or endorse Obama as doing so for the same, narrowly defined reasons, I can only speak for myself. The choice has been narrowed down to two candidates - McCain and Obama (although some are still hanging out hope for Hillary). McCain for the last 8 years has aligned himself with GW Bush and his policies, which, IMO and about 80 percent of the population, believe have been a miserable failure, and so I'm betting on the best horse left...Obama. This is the political system we've got...and you support your candidate with whatever lumps that come with them. Obama will win in November and he'll win decisively. If Hillary were the nominee, I'd say the same thing. Eight years of the Bush Administration has pretty much sealed the deal for voters...and you can take that to the bank.

There you go again. That check you want to cash when Obama wins will bounce. Obama hasn't a clue when it comes to the world. That much is becoming more clear by the day.

Keep convincing yourself that, Gary. The days of the neo-cons running this country into the ground are numbered. It's going to be a massacre on election day where the Republicans will lose many seats in congress as well as the White House. I don't mean to rub your nose in Dubbya's sh!t, but you keep on insisting that the voters will hold their noses for another 4 years of it and that's just not accepting reality.

[GaryC 7]

Thanks for proving my point. Obama supporters (or at least the ones I've met) have no idea what Obama really wants but they will blindly follow their messiah to the bitter end. Obama should change his slogan buzzwords from "hope" and "change" to "believe" and "obey".

"Ask McCain and you'll get at least 7 different answers. He can't even get his facts straight about Iraq."

Actually the policy is pretty clear. He supports the status quo of the successful surge strategy and continuing to meet the benchmarks laid out. He's has talked about "100" years in Iraq but Obama cuts off the next sentence about a relatively peaceful presence a al Germany, Japan or Cuba. You may disagree with McCain but Obama will preside over his own surrender policy and reap the positives and negatives that come with it.

Don't forget to look at the carpetbagger website to get your response straight.

Hey, hats off to bloggers like Steve Benen who actually cite their sources, and thank God (or Al Gore) for the blogosphere.

Although it may be convenient to classify all who have decided to support or endorse Obama as doing so for the same, narrowly defined reasons, I can only speak for myself. The choice has been narrowed down to two candidates - McCain and Obama (although some are still hanging out hope for Hillary). McCain for the last 8 years has aligned himself with GW Bush and his policies, which, IMO and about 80 percent of the population, believe have been a miserable failure, and so I'm betting on the best horse left...Obama. This is the political system we've got...and you support your candidate with whatever lumps that come with them. Obama will win in November and he'll win decisively. If Hillary were the nominee, I'd say the same thing. Eight years of the Bush Administration has pretty much sealed the deal for voters...and you can take that to the bank.

There you go again. That check you want to cash when Obama wins will bounce. Obama hasn't a clue when it comes to the world. That much is becoming more clear by the day.

Keep convincing yourself that, Gary. The days of the neo-cons running this country into the ground are numbered. It's going to be a massacre on election day where the Republicans will lose many seats in congress as well as the White House. I don't mean to rub your nose in Dubbya's sh!t, but you keep on insisting that the voters will hold their noses for another 4 years of it and that's just not accepting reality.

Your the one that is living in a dream world. Obama hasn't a chance.