The Whiner-in-Chief Strikes Again
Filed under: 2008 elections — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 9, 2008 @ 9:50 am CEST
So, I am in Turkey and haven’t checked the news for a week or so. Then I decide to head on over to Memeorandum to see what’s happening in the world and, more specifically, in the United States. The first headline I see? “Obama: ‘McCain is losing his bearings’.” It is utterly amazing: you ignore American politics for one week and when you start paying attention to it you immediately see that… nothing has changed.
The man - if I’m allowed to call a whiner like that a man - just can’t stop whining. It’s pathological. For some reason he isn’t even ashamed of it. Whining, whining, whining. Always accusing the other side of playing dirty, while playing incredibly dirty oneself.
Obama is like the annoying little kid - greatly spoiled by his parents - who secretly hits another kid and then, when the other kids hits back, starts crying and calling for his mama.
O, and saying that Hamas prefers Obama isn’t a smear. It is a fact. And why does this terrorist organization support Obama? Because Obama has surrounded himself by anti-Israelites, perhaps even anti-Semites. Because the people who supported him early on in his career all believe that his recent public support for Israel isn’t heartfelt. On top of that, he is willing to talk to everyone who wants to destroy Israel and / or kill as many Americans as possible.
In short, Hamas knows that Americans will not elect someone who is passionately anti-Israel: Obama is the best they can do.
I will laugh my butt off when Obama becomes the president and when, four years later, many of those who support him now will say: but this isn’t what I voted for! I thought he was different, a better kind of politician.
No he’s not. And those who favor his style over Clinton’s style seemingly don’t see the obvious: Obama has become better at Clintonian politics than the Clintons are.
And no, that is not a compliment.
1 Claudia
May 9, 2008 @ 11:37 am CESTI see your utterly pathological dislike of Obama hasn’t softened one bit in good company. Yes, there’s no smear to "Obama, the Hamas candidate!" noooo.
Obama could make the argument as easily that the Iraq war has been one of Al Qaeda’s best recruitement tool and then say "Osama likes Bush!".
The KKK will likely endorse McCain because you can’t have a black man as president. You would approve then of Obama saying that McCain was the KKK candidate? Because I wouldn’t, I’d find it vile.
2 C Stanley
May 9, 2008 @ 12:00 pm CEST<blockquote>Obama could make the argument as easily that the Iraq war has been one of Al Qaeda’s best recruitement tool and then say "Osama likes Bush!".</blockquote>Um, no, because OBL didn’t come out and say that. You’d be basing it on your own presumptions about what he’d prefer. In fact if anything, the opposite is true as OBL issued that video right before the 2004 election which condemned Bush and was seen as some to be an attempt to influence the election by making people afraid to reelect Bush.
<blockquote>The KKK will likely endorse McCain because you can’t have a black man as president. You would approve then of Obama saying that McCain was the KKK candidate? Because I wouldn’t, I’d find it vile.</blockquote>
But Hamas didn’t endorse Obama for reasons of predjudice against a white man- they did so because Obama’s stated policies would be more favorable to their goals than McCain’s would- or at least that’s how they see it. If there was something in McCain’s platform that made it likely that the KKK would endorse him based on furthering their racist agenda, then wouldn’t you see things in a different light? I forget, were you one of the ones who thought that those sorts of endorsements were a problem for Ron Paul?
3 C Stanley
May 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm CESTUh, sorry about the formatting. HTML code doesn’t work even when I try to use the HTML button, and I’m back to using IE which doesn’t support the use of the idiot buttons apparently.
4 daveinboca
May 9, 2008 @ 1:27 pm CESTLooks like the perpetual whiners of the ultra-left Obamaniac wing will approve sitting down with Ahmadodojihad & Hamas ’splodin’ dudes because preconditions….or what?
Obama is a fool and a lot of his supporters are totally delusional. It’s the Big Leagues now and he’s gotta man up and stop whining. He said some stupid things & as his "mentor & pastor" would say, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Obama should get a pair of stones and stop whining while he plays dirty against McCain & Clinton. Does he actually believe that blacks & eggheads & a media that let him pander will get him the presidency? Too many sensible people out there—ain’t gonna happen.
And of course, his surrogates will say that anything referring to his own race & his pastor’s rants will be racism—did anyone hear him mention "typical white person" about his grandma, who raised him while his worthless drunk bigamist daddy abandoned him at two. That’s gratitude!
And he told Wolf yesterday that he could win the votes of "hard-working white people." Is that a racial slur against blacks?
He’s an amateur.
5 Jason
May 9, 2008 @ 2:00 pm CESTEvery time I read yet another post provoked by Obama’s victories over the Clintons I have to ask: who’s "whining" again?
Personally, I’m not decided on the McCain-Obama matchup, but I am quite happy with the outcome of the Obama-Clinton matchup. It is not “whining”, its celebration. Deal with it, Obama won fair and square. Stop whining about it already.
Nice allies you got there, Michael.
6 Jason
May 9, 2008 @ 2:13 pm CESTClaudia,
Obama hasn’t made that claim, but it is quite common among the lefty parts of the blogosphere. It is strange to see the similarity between the anti-Obama crusade and the anti-Bush crusade — they use nearly identical rhetorical strategies but would probably not embrace each other willingly in any other way.
But remember the “logic” here: We’re supposed to prefer Hillary over Obama because she has always been a political low-life and never claimed to be anything else and therefore doesn’t deserve to be judged negatively for it. By the same logic, we should prefer a candidate who openly accepted bribes because at least they are doing it openly. Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson for President!!!!
7 C Stanley
May 9, 2008 @ 2:47 pm CESTJason, do you not agree that there’s a difference between insinuating that OBL would support or endorse Bush, and just stating the fact that Hamas actually has done so in regard to Obama? You really don’t think it is acceptable to mention at all that a terrorist group thinks his policies would further their own agenda better than the GOP candidates’ would?
8 Jason
May 9, 2008 @ 2:59 pm CESTI think it is odd that anti-Obama people assume that Hamas is rational enough to know exactly what is good for them in an American presidential candidate AND simultaneously irrational enough to be completely unaware of the probable effect of their announcing such a view.
Let’s not forget that the Weathermen (an American terrorist group of the 1960s) endorsed Richard Nixon out of the view that his presidency would "maximize the contradictions". You just can’t read anything meaningful into the statements of a terrorist group.
Conservatives used to know this before some of them were driven mad by the demon Barack Obama.
P.S. I didn’t say anything about what is or is not “acceptable”. Why is it that anti-Obama people equate all criticism of their position with an attempt to exclude it? Who’s “whining” then???
9 T-Steel
May 9, 2008 @ 3:21 pm CESTIt is quite depressing to take the word of Hamas as gold in our presidential elections. Apparently Hamas is that stupid because they can say "we support" and get us all in a tizzy concerning Obama’s "electibility". I hear the argument all the time that Hamas’ endorsement means Obama will be more sympathetic them. I submit that Obama can sit down with a nutjob like Ahmendinajad, talk to him, go back to the States, and then send in the troops if it warrants it. Why is talking to and not dealing harshly with mutually exclusive?
I’ll tell you this much, since McCain has "all the answers" (yes I over-emphasizing for effect) in dealing with despots, he should just walk into the presidency because that is what Americans care about the most. NOT! When gas hits $4+ a gallon and our way of life takes a huge hit, "despot dealing" isn’t going to be high on the radar.
I predict that Obama, Clinton, or McCain will be facing the possibility of Bush-like low approval ratings due to the American economy. And I don’t have faith in either one of them in economic issues.
10 T-Steel
May 9, 2008 @ 3:22 pm CESTShould read:
Apparently Hamas isn’t that stupid because they can say "we support" and get us all in a tizzy concerning Obama’s "electibility".
11 Joe Citizen
May 9, 2008 @ 3:35 pm CEST"Oooh, you are playing the age card!" "Losing my bearings? Thats so mean!"
That sir, is whining. Objecting to being lumped with Hamas is not whining.
And I really dont know what the right adjective is for what you are doing. We’ll have to find something that alludes to childish name-calling obsessive hatred deriving from who-knows-where, and a complete lack of any useful information.
12 C Stanley
May 9, 2008 @ 4:11 pm CESTJason, the way I see it, the Hamas leader who endorsed Obama was just responding to interview questions and expressed his preference- there doesn’t have to be a motive to influence the election there. And of course, what also seems to be missed (I think T-Steel makes this error) is that no one is claiming that Obama WANTS the endorsement of Hamas or that he sympathizes with them. What is being pointed out is that some of his stated foreign policy positions would have certain effects, which some people believe would make it easier for groups like Hamas to flourish. Other people who support Obama obviously don’t think that that’s true- but those of us who find that part of his platform troubling are pointing to the Hamas statements to say that their leaders seem to agree with our assessment of the situation; I agree that the statements that such people make are open to a number of different interpretations (did they say X for their own internal audience or for the foreign audience, for Americans or other international groups, etc) but in this case I can’t think of any propaganda uses that the Hamas leader may have intended to serve his own purposes, so I’m parsing it as his honest straightforward assessment.
13 T-Steel
May 9, 2008 @ 4:28 pm CESTPoint taken C Stanley. I think my larger issue is that I feel very uncomfortable when a terrorist organization makes a statement and it is used a fuel to discredit a presidential candidate IF they don’t have a record of supporting terrorism. Some bloggers and others (not necessarily pointing out people here) are making a dangerous leap in associating a presidential candidate with terrorist sympathizing in my opinion. If North Korea said they endorse Senator Clinton because of her (obliterate Iran comments), I would ignore them also.
I agree with Joe Citizen, McCain sounds more whiny than Obama in this instance.
14 Pug
May 9, 2008 @ 4:32 pm CESTMichael, Hillary lost, OK? Time to get over it and be a big boy.
Get a grip, man! It seems you’ve lost your bearings.
15 Interested
May 9, 2008 @ 8:51 pm CESTAfter a week of no Michael politics posts - we come back to find that nothing has changed.
16 PatHMV
May 9, 2008 @ 10:02 pm CESTT-Steel… The Hamas statement in favor of Obama is not evidence of any bad character by Obama, but it is an entirely relevant and legitimate issue for another reason.
Hamas is clearly the enemy of America. They are a terrorist organization. They clearly believe that if Sen. Obama is elected President, the policies he will implement will benefit them. That’s not in any way to say that Sen. Obama INTENDS those policies to benefit Hamas, simply to say that Hamas believes the consequences of those policies will be in their interest (at least moreso than the policies of Sen. McCain or Sen. Clinton would be). That should give us all good reason to look very closely at those policies and decide whether they really would benefit our enemies, and whether the benefit to us and our friends of those policies outweigh any benefit they might provide to our enemies.
It is entirely legitimate and in fact essential to discuss the potential consequences of the policies advocated by the various candidates. That an ardent enemy of peace like Hamas things that Obama’s policies would favor them should give us pause before we decide to adopt those policies by electing him.
17 JudasPriest
May 10, 2008 @ 12:29 am CESTSo Obama will exercise policies that will benefit our enemies, such a twisted logic you have. Do you hear what you are saying and actualy beileve in that Obama would act for the benefit of Hamas. All he could be doing would be to hear both sides as all preceeding him had done it likewise through various channels. Know this, there is a foreign policy line of US and all presidents abide by that line. Amazing blunder of human logic; conservative I guess.
18 PatHMV
May 10, 2008 @ 1:07 am CESTI don’t at all believe that Obama would DESIRE to help Hamas, but I do think that the liberal approach to foreign policy which Obama generally espouses would in fact be more beneficial to Hamas than a more conservative approach. Hamas obviously thinks so, too, or else they would not have endorsed him. This is a distinction you liberals seem utterly unable to make. Saying that his policies will benefit Hamas is NOT calling him a terrorist-sympathizer. But policies have consequences (as I’m sure you must agree, since you hate conservatives so), and those consequences sometimes benefit one group at the expense of another. It’s entirely appropriate to explore those consequences as part of the election process.
By saying that all presidents abide by a standard foreign policy line, are you assuring me that regardless of his rhetoric and his policy position statements, that his policies in the Middle East will be identical to those of John McCain? Interesting. I’m happy to hear that.
19 C Stanley
May 10, 2008 @ 2:33 pm CESTPat, I’ve been trying to say the same thing- that pointing out the endorsement by Hamas is not at all the same as calling him a terrorist sympathizer. I find it odd that liberals either won’t or can’t understand that. They can certainly have an honest disagreement over whether or not it’s true that Obama’s policies would create more favorable conditions for certain terrorist groups, but for the most part what many people seem to be saying is that we shouldn’t even talk about foreign policy in those terms at all.
Yet what’s really funny is that many of the same people who feel that way have been saying for years now that BUSH’s foreign policy has favored al Qaeda and the extremists in Iran. This line of thinking apparently isn’t out of line. Does that mean that they’re saying that Bush sympathizes with those groups and wants them to flourish? I guess there are some tin foil hat types who actually believe that- the ones who say that Bush set out to create a permanent war which would guarantee a fearful atmosphere here to keep him in power. But I don’t think that most of the moderate liberals and left leaning centrists believe that, they just think that the effects of Bush’s policies have had that as an unintended consequence.
Basically what it boils down to is a pretty obvious observation- that our foreign policy has effects that are either positive or negative for our enemies, and any rational person would then want to see the kinds of policies that he/she believes would maximize our advantage over those who are attempting to harm the US and our interests. For liberals, the belief is generally that we should be less interventionist and use soft power exclusively unless in direct response to an attack. For conservatives, soft power has to be backed up with a credible threat of force because history shows that rogue nations (and now terrorist organizations that aren’t sovereign states) will themselves use force if their power isn’t kept in check.
For a discussion of the fallacies of Obama’s statements on foreign policy, I recommend everyone read Ed Morrissey here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/07/video-roosevelt-talked-to-hitler-and-tojo/
and here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/07/video-roosevelt-talked-to-hitler-and-tojo/
I’d love to hear how Jason, Claudia, or other Obama supporters analyze those statements- what do you think that Obama meant when he invoked FDR and Truman?
20 JudasPriest
May 10, 2008 @ 4:26 pm CESTHe meant what he means that he’d NOT be a narrow minded, "I am the most powerful and I’ll wage wars as I wish without considering the consequences, without listening to other nations using false evidence" type of president. Yes I’d love him to talk to our enemies. A wise world leader would do that instead of calling anyone that he does not like as evil-doers, that only gives ammunition for the other party to respond with the same intensity of hatred. Talking to "evil-doers!" takes away the reasons that their leaders use to inject hatred to the hearts and minds of their people. Failed and miscalculated US policies in Middle East and in Afghanistan already fueled hatred, anger and displeasure within the sufferers of Middle Eastern people. Obama will not go to bed with Saudis, he is smart enough to understand the basic human frustration of Middle Eastern people over Bush’s stupid war. Iraq with Saddam would have been a much much better alternative than the chaos and mess that we are in right now or should say that we left Iraq with some millions of displaced Iraqis, hundreds of thousands of dead people. But this is probably just a remote side effect for you and you’d think that this’d not give you any discomfort while you are swinging in your rocker. Well, you are dead wrong.
21 C Stanley
May 10, 2008 @ 4:59 pm CESTJudas, did you read the pieces I linked to? The point is that the historical examples he gave don’t make sense. FDR left us on diplomatic terms with Germany but he never invited Hitler to talks without precondition, and when talks did take place under those administrations, the results did not prevent war (in fact the opposite, if anything- they worsened the eventual conflict.)
22 JudasPriest
May 10, 2008 @ 5:15 pm CESTIt could have just worked the other way around at least they tried. Anyways, the examples he gave could be not exactly right, the essence of what he was trying to convey was what I was after.
23 C Stanley
May 10, 2008 @ 5:22 pm CESTAh, so it’s the "truthy if not true" defense.
I thought the point of learning from history was that you actually had to understand it and be accurate in your assessment of it, but I suppose for some people the idea is just to pretend that history conforms to one’s preconceived notions, state that it does, and then if someone points out that it doesn’t you say "well, it could have worked the way I think it should have, and the fact that it didn’t just doesn’t matter to me."
24 JudasPriest
May 10, 2008 @ 8:54 pm CESTC Stanley why dont you try to understand the simple fact that unless you are willing to solve matters on the table and try to talk to people not exactly inline with our interests you wont accomplish anything at all. Instead, If you choose to alienate them, insult them and be hostile to them you can not expect them to be nice to you. As simple as that. Now if those examples does not conform this simple, basic logic then fine bad examples but dont smudge his intentions as-to what he was trying to convey. History is full of examples of such good leadership skills that have prevented unnecessary wars. I gotta run for my son’s soccer practice now.
25 C Stanley
May 10, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CESTJudas- I have to leave now too, but my response to that is:
1. Talk to who, exactly?
2. Without any preconditions about what things are on the table for discussion and which are not, or with preconditions?
3. What would be the thing you think could be accomplished by such discussions?
4. Would you acknowledge that leaders will sometimes use diplomatic meetings for their own propaganda advantage? Should you have any concern about that at all?
5. If you’re only talking about having discussions to learn more about the real intentions of the other party, why do you think we currently lack that information? And why would you assume that what the leader would say is his intention in a face to face meeting like that is his true agenda? Should we at least hold it up to scrutiny against what his actions and rhetoric to internal audiences says?
If the answers to the last question are that you’re going to assume that the leader may just give a load of BS, then what’s the point? And if you aren’t going to have some skepticism about what he says, than that’s downright dangerous, to take someone at his word if he’s not trustworthy.
26 Jason
May 10, 2008 @ 9:35 pm CEST1. "May" does not equal “will”, Christine. Even if someone were to grant the highly debatable premises that you package into your questions, the mere risk that an initiative will not succeed does not constitute a reason to exclude it from consideration. Negotiations are almost cost-free and even a 10% chance of some positive outcome is usually sufficient to justify the attempt.
2. In all of the blanket rejections by most conservatives of the prospects of negotiating with actual and potential enemies have I ever heard anything that answers either of the following questions:
a. How does negotiating preclude military action if that were to become necessary?
b. How does negotiating grant "legitimacy" and what is the impact to such a grant of "legitimacy" anyway?
3. What are the alternatives to negotiation and how have those alternatives fared historically in obtaining national goals?
Frankly, I think many conservatives have fallen victim to the "fallacy of the hammer" where they think that the only tool available to deal with potential enemies is the application of military force. Like 2-year-olds with a big shiny hammer, the whole world looks to them like nails. For nationalistic and emotional reasons, they willfully turn away from a long conservative intellectual and philosophical history of practical, hard-headed diplomacy that has an actual record of success to validate it.
And as a professional student of international relations, I think that is just stupid. Yes, negotiations may result only in the identification of intractable conflict, requiring the resort to other tools. But they are at least equally likely to identify at least some areas of compatible interests. Since negotiations do not foreclose other options coming later and since they always have at least some potential to identify shared interests, all it takes to endorse them is a simply embrace of rational calculus. Unfortunately, too many conservatives prefer to embrace what amounts to nothing more than emotionalism.
27 Jason
May 10, 2008 @ 9:42 pm CESTBTW, in response to your question #4, leaders will also use refusal to negotiate for their propaganda advantage. We’ve seen that time and time again, including most recently from Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. Since an equal attempt at propaganda may occur either way, it does not constitute a reason to reject negotiations.
In response to #1, we talk to identifiable leaders of whatever states or groups we have actual or potential disagreements with. That talking ends, of course, at the point that an actual war is declared (don’t throw out the straw-man of “you’re saying we should negotiate with bin Laden), but before we reach the point of open military conflict, I don’t see any significant downside to attempting diplomatic engagements.
Re: #2: Issue linkages are an essential tool in diplomacy. That means that it is just foolhardy to put issues off the table before negotiations even start. That does NOT mean that we adopt the “Jimmy Carter approach” and give away the store. We should be open with our adversaries and firm about the “red lines” we will not allow them to cross. But we shouldn’t simply refuse to even hear their complaints about those lines nor should we foreclose discussions that might lead to “side deals” that reduce conflict without compromising our “red line” interests.
Re: #3: We don’t know until we try. What we do know is that the negotiations will at least serve to put both sides on the record prior to the initiation of any hostilities. No one promises that negotiations will magically resolve intractable conflicts nor does anyone promise that other actions might not eventually be necessary. But negotiations historically do tend to decrease the range of issues that are in conflict. As such, it is usually net-beneficial to attempt them, even if the only outcome is to be able to say to our allies that we attempted them in good faith before asking for their support in a military operation or a set of economic sanctions.
Re: #5: My answer is the same as #4 — even if I concede that there is some risk of deception or posing, the exact same risk exists if we refuse to negotiate. Negotiations thus produce a net benefit (being seen attempting negotiations) without any unique downside. And even with a deceptive leader like Arafat, who says different things to international and domestic audiences, negotiations have the effect of making their task more difficult to sustain in the long term, especially given the growth in global access to uncontrolled avenues of information communication (i.e. internet, satellite television, etc.). When we refuse to negotiation for purely emotional reasons like a belief that “they are irrational”, we wind up conceding the public-relations initiation, making it so that they are the only ones talking at all.
And like I said, that’s just stupid.
Let’s remember, the conservative hero Ronald Reagan embraced negotiations with the maxim “trust, but verify”. This simple principle indicates the utility of negotiations for conservatives. It does NOT, in fact, involve the unreasonable assumption that you ascribe that cheating will inevitably result in us being played for suckers. If we can negotiate “open skies” provisions with the Soviets, I think that it is not prima facie impossible to negotiate nuclear monitoring systems with the Iranians or North Koreans, for example. And if it does turn out to be impossible after having been attempted, we will have all the same options available to us that we had before the negotiations, with the added benefit of having increased willingness among our allies to consider harsher policy options.
So I don’t see the problem with negotiations except that it lacks the “rush” of blowing stuff up and it involves actually embracing the same techniques as the more effete among the Europeans do from time to time. But those sorts of considerations SHOULD be unworthy of serious foreign policy conservatives.
28 C Stanley
May 10, 2008 @ 11:23 pm CESTJason, glad to see your response as I figured you’d be an Obama supporter who would actually give an intellectually honest and well reasoned reponse. I’m glancing through right now and will give my thoughts in response to it but probably won’t have opportunity to do so till tomorrow. My initial approach is that you are arguing against a more extreme version of ’refusing to negotiate’ than I would support anyway- but that my questions did attempt to get at the fallacies that I see involved in those who embrace what you call the "Jimmy Carter give away the farm" approach. My own views are some where in between those extremes, and I simply see some times when war hasn’t necessarily be declared (which appears to be your line in the sand) when it still might be beneficial to have preconditions before any negotiations can take place. In a way that touches on the Reagan doctrine of ‘trust but verify’ that you mention, because I think there are some situations where the ability to verify has to be a precondition (case in point would be Iran needing to agree to abide by inspections before the issue of nuclear development can even be on the table.)
29 Jason
May 11, 2008 @ 2:44 am CESTWhat I was arguing against was what I see as a trivial and uninformed criticism of Obama’s pledge to negotiate with Iran and other adversaries. Unless I just missed it, no one has yet made a case to prove that Obama’s proposal amounts to a Jimmy Carter, give-away-the-store approach and/or limited their criticism to such a scenario. If anyone has made such a case, I would ask to see their evidence. (Actually, presentation of evidence would be a nice change of pace from the anti-Obama ranters generally.)
Instead, many conservative pundits and commenters have criticized ALL proposals to negotiate with Iran. It is not at all unfair to say that they reject ALL negotiations with Iran as unacceptable and “giving legitimacy” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Their hatin’ on Obama isn’t in the form of questions inquiring as to what kind of negotiations he wants, they are in the form of blanket rejection of even the mere thought of negotiating with an “enemy” government like Iran’s. Thus, I respond to that kind of blanket rejection as it is the only kind of rejection that corresponds to the context where I am responding.
It is always assumed that part of any arms-control or technology-control negotiation process will be a negotiation over verification procedures. For example, inspections on-site at Yongbon were a topic of the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, not a precondition to their beginning. To insist that a particular verification regime be agreed to prior to even opening negotiations is to create a catch-22 — it would be impossible to negotiate the verification regime upon which the Iranians would have to agree before even starting negotiations, eh? If you mean only that the Iranians would have to agree in principle to some verification regime being a subject of negotiations, well, duh. I think they have already done so, albeit with a great deal of posturing about how they are being unfairly and improperly singled out by the West. At any rate, it is implicit to the acceptance of ANY negotiations that the participants agree to abide by the procedures they agree to therein or suffer the consequences specified therein.
Anyway, I don’t think anyone in the potential Obama administration nor anyone here is suggesting that we just "take their word for it". Before I would be willing to engage a criticism based on the assumption that Obama’s proposal for negotiations amounts to just "taking their word for it", I would need to see some documentation of such an extreme reinterpretation. I believe the most reasonable way to interpret Obama’s proposal is that negotiations with Iran would take the normal form of diplomatic negotiations — a laying out of positions by both sides, a search for compatibility, and the maintenance of other options should negotiations fail to reach a satisfactory AND verifiable outcome. And if the Iranians failed to live up to their bargain, I don’t believe there is any reason other than just bald partisan bias to assume a priori that an Obama administration would fail to make use of those follow-on options.
30 JudasPriest
May 11, 2008 @ 2:53 am CESTMy unintellectual explicitly clear response to self-righteous commentator(s):Are we as US developing nuclear weapons?If yes, then without preconditions, I’d favor opening talks with Iran. What is wrong with that? If talks cant do anything you still have other avenues to pursue. Jimmy Carter did not give away nothing, he is a respected US president in the world outside the realm of conservative minds since he took the extra step and it does not matter who he listened to, he just broke the hard-liner, hard-headed, neo-con fallacies which brought and accomplished nothing but dislike and human-drama both in Middle-East and at home.
31 Jason
May 11, 2008 @ 3:00 am CESTYou’re right. He didn’t give away nothing. He gave away something. (Unless you have a good excuse like being a non-native English speaker, then I suggest you learn basic grammar if you expect to be taken seriously in an intellectual discussion about how to best handle complex diplomatic policy.) Specifically, he gave away the Panama Canal — a major strategic asset for a United States that basis its global influence on naval power — for…well, nothing. He negotiated a deal with North Korea in 1994 that completely lacked verification procedures while granting North Korea billions of dollars worth of free oil shipments and the construction of a light-water nuclear power reactor. And by 1994 he was so distrusted by even the Clinton administration that they made sure Colin Powell was around to provide oversight when he went to negotiate with Haiti’s dictator, lest he offer the keys to the White House or something.
Before commenting on “hard-liner, hard-headed, neo-con fallacies which brought and accomplished nothing but dislike and human-drama both in Middle-East and at home”, you might want to take account of more than just the last 2-5 years. Jimmy Carter’s pathetic record of achievements goes much further back. His sole success at Camp David in 1979 was when he was acting as a mediator between Egypt and Israel, not a negotiator of U.S. national interests in regards to an adversary.
32 JudasPriest
May 11, 2008 @ 5:14 am CESTI dont see anything wrong with my post in terms of its grammar Mister Jason the Managing Editor. Have you had any difficulty understanding its context? Should I take your disturbing comment seriously I dont know. Having written 15+ scientific papers, I dont think I should. Should I knit-pick grammar errors of other people’s comments or evaluate them according to their context and core messages. The latter of which is what you should be doing instead of insulting comments like that. About Jimmy Carter, I dont know about his presidency time, I was not in US and not paying attention to US politics as much. So I take your word for it. However, I am glad to see anyone who dont fear to demonstrate his dislike about the current administration not just by words but with action. Jimmy Carter is one of those guys.
33 Tully
May 11, 2008 @ 5:22 pm CESTFrankly, I think many conservatives have fallen victim to the "fallacy of the hammer" where they think that the only tool available to deal with potential enemies is the application of military force.
I think Tully’s Corollary to Kaplan’s Law of the Instrument seems to fit much better there.
I would note that formal negotiations with terrorist groups and nations has a MUCH lower track record of success than the Big Hammer approach. Such groups and nations rarely if ever live up to their agreements, and most often use such negotiations as a stalling tactic to gain breathing space and momentary advantage, and to concentrate power even farther.
I would also note that back-channel negotiations go on in secret both directly and via intermediaries with regularity. They just don’t make headlines, being done secretly without issuing press invites. Formal diplomacy is far from the only kind of diplomacy employed, and when informal communications and intel do not indicate any real possibility of success from formal approaches, unilaterally beginning formal approaches anyway is silly. Downright, er, Carteresque.
34 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 5:51 pm CESTInstead, many conservative pundits and commenters have criticized ALL proposals to negotiate with Iran. It is not at all unfair to say that they reject ALL negotiations with Iran as unacceptable and “giving legitimacy” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Their hatin’ on Obama isn’t in the form of questions inquiring as to what kind of negotiations he wants, they are in the form of blanket rejection of even the mere thought of negotiating with an “enemy” government like Iran’s. Thus, I respond to that kind of blanket rejection as it is the only kind of rejection that corresponds to the context where I am responding.
First, I’d have to see some specific references to which conservative commenters and pundits you refer to, to see if I’d agree with the way you’re characterizing them. I’ll give you credit for using third person, referring to the way "THEY" attack Obama, in what I’d assume was an intentional omission of me personally from that criticism. You almost succeeded in that, until your last statement in the quote above. If this is always the context in which you’re making those comments, then that doesn’t quite fit with your commenting right HERE in response to my statements which were NOT of the type that you are objecting to. So the question is whether or not you’re willing to engage in that discussion with me, or are you just going to keep taking this in the direction of criticizing what you feel is the blanket condemnation that is issued by this general group of conservative critics of Obama?
I call BS on this, for example:
It is not at all unfair to say that they reject ALL negotiations with Iran as unacceptable and “giving legitimacy” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Their hatin’ on Obama isn’t in the form of questions inquiring as to what kind of negotiations he wants, they are in the form of blanket rejection of even the mere thought of negotiating with an “enemy” government like Iran’s
I say it is unfair to say that, as I’ve never seen anyone saying what you claim here that they’re saying. So unless you want to give examples, I’m certainly not accepting that this is the prevailing manner in which Obama is being criticized. Even the Bush administration isn’t taking the stance that you’re attributing to conservatives here- the offer to sit down to negotiations has been open to Iran for some time now, but with precondition regarding the verification aspect.
Note too that you’ve already pointed out a major difference in my own comment from the type of ‘blanket condemnation’ that you refuse to engage, when you say that "Their hatin’ on Obama isn’t in the form of questions inquiring as to what kind of negotiations he wants" and obviously those questions were how I opened the dialogue. So again, the question is whether or not you’ll stick to discussing it with me, instead of having a dialogue with imaginary conservative pundits who’ve all been lumped into this category of "Obama haters" (and apparently they’ve got a cracker dialect goin’ too, as they’re hatin’ on him.)
Now, if you do wish to actually discuss MY criticism of Obama’s stance, let me start by asking you about this:
It is always assumed that part of any arms-control or technology-control negotiation process will be a negotiation over verification procedures.
That is a huge assumption, no? Given that, by your own admission:
If you mean only that the Iranians would have to agree in principle to some verification regime being a subject of negotiations, well, duh. I think they have already done so, albeit with a great deal of posturing about how they are being unfairly and improperly singled out by the West.
You and I are working on different assumptions here, and you concede that you only think you know what you think you know. I think if we are to go farther with the discussion, it’ll be important to verify the facts on this because it is a crux of our disagreement, I think. I have been working on the opposite assumption, that the Iranians do not accept your first requirement that you say everyone always assumes or agrees to. Their posturing, as I understand it, has been in the form of completely rejecting the idea that they should have to submit to any verification process.
Anyway, it’s also interesting that Obama’s advisors are attempting to
lie aboutbackpedal off of his previous statements about direct negotiations, which suggests that maybe there’s something to what I’m saying and that perhaps his earlier statements involved a bit of pandering to BDS sufferers who actually believe that Condi Rice sits around with her fingers in her ears saying "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, we won’t talk to you" and Obama seeks to remedy this complete lack of diplomacy from the Bush administration.35 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 6:38 pm CESTChristine, it is difficult to respond seriously when you deny the reality of the entire thread above. This whole thread was begun with the purpose of bashing Obama. The specific issue chosen by the commenters above is the prospect of negotiating with Iran, rejected by the commenters on this thread on a blanket level without any apparent exceptions. If you’re not willing to recognize that this is, in fact, the context of the thread, then we clearly have incompatible perceptions of reality.
When you go on to deny the basic, constitutive elements of what "negotiations" have ALWAYS meant in the history of international relations (presentation of positions, search for compatibility, shaping of agreements and associated side-payments, and the discussion of verification provisions), I am at a loss at how to engage with what appears to be nothing less than a complete rejection of basic conceptual definitions. If you are going to claim that Obama or the Iranians are using a definition of "negotiations" that differs fundamentally from what that term has meant every single other time in the history of international relations, you’re going to need more evidence than just a claim that you are assuming that they are doing so.
This is just flatly wrong. The Iranian position is that they should not be subject to any MORE inspections than any other signatory of the NPT regime. If you are going to contend that Iran has argued that it should be exempt from all verification provisions past, present, and future and that it is unwilling to even discuss them as provision of a negotiations process, you will need to provide more documentation than just your unwarranted assumptions. Such a claim would be so unusual — indeed, unprecedented in the history of international relations — that it should surely be easy for you to find.
P.S. I resent your attempt to use my inclusion of an acknowledgment of the limitations of my own level of analytical perfection as an attempt to discredit my entire argument. Use of "I think" is simply being responsible, not a concession of a superior level of confidence granted to the other side. This is, unfortunately, one of the many reasons why discussions on blogs are frankly not worth the time or trouble. The entire process is clearly not intellectually serious, but rather only a game where words are twisted in order to "win".
I have a dissertation and several articles to work on. I don’t have time for this and I am very frustrated at always having to repeat or clarify even the most basic points in order to avoid a constant stream of game-playing. I’ve had enough of trying.
36 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:03 pm CESTWhen you go on to deny the basic, constitutive elements of what "negotiations" have ALWAYS meant in the history of international relations (presentation of positions, search for compatibility, shaping of agreements and associated side-payments, and the discussion of verification provisions), I am at a loss at how to engage with what appears to be nothing less than a complete rejection of basic conceptual definitions.
Jason, I think the obvious (to most readers at least) point I was making is that if IRAN is rejecting those basic elements of what negotiations have always entailed, then the position that I and many other conservatives hold is perfectly justified. If Iran, as you believe or assert (depending on whether I use your first post where you expressed a vague understanding of it or your second where you seem more sure of your underlying assumptions and criticize me for even mentioning that you had expressed less than complete knowledge) does in fact agree to the basic level of verfiability which are always assumed to be a precondition of negotiation, then your position is the more justifiable one. If I find facts to back up my own assumptions, I’ll let you know even though I have little hope that you will move off of what is obviously a firmly dug in position. It would be nice if you’d refrain from dismissing my attempt to get at fact vs. supposition as a process which is "not intellectually serious, but rather only a game where words are twisted in order to "win".
37 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:10 pm CESTEvidence, not assumptions, Christine. If Iran is making such a complete and radical break with the entire foundation of the international system, you should surely be able to find a clear and uncomplicated statement to that effect.
My position is "firmly dug in" because I have not seen a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that Iran is a complete and radical departure from what every other country, including rogues like North Korea, have always accepted as normal part of the very definition of "negotiations". I teach this stuff for a living and if Iran has so thoroughly and unequivocally placed itself completely outside the normal processes of international diplomacy. it is news to me even after a whole semester teaching National Security Policy and having weekly updates on everything Iran says or does.
If, however, your position is based on nothing other than "assumptions", then that is an indicator of bias on your part, not evidence of anything Iran did or the Obama campaign endorsed. And if you are only now starting to look for evidence, it is apparent that your PRIOR position was not based on evidence, now isn’t it?
And if the (selective, since I think it unlikely that you would go out of your way to also report the many statements by Iranian officials that support my interpretation of the Iranian position, including but not limited to the last 4 years of their actions engaging in the normal processes of negotiations using the normal definition of what “negotiations” are with the IAEA and the EU) search for "facts" only begins after 3 rounds of arguing from nothing but assumptions and biases, can’t you see how I might find such an exercise pointless?
38 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:20 pm CESTFrom two hours ago, evidence of Iranian participation in normal "negotiations" with the IAEA.
Iran’s state-controlled media does not show any evidence of a radical new concept of "negotiations" that rejects the possibility of verification discussions either.
Iran’s state-controlled media explicitly endorses Iran’s participation at the normal level of any NPT state.
Yes, there are serious conflicts between the U.S. position (no enrichment for fear of it being diverted to weapons use) and the Iranian position (that enrichment is their right under the normal provisions of the NPT). But that difference is not evidence that Iran rejects all concept of verification for the things that it DOES agree to. Also, you should know that Iran has submitted to the normal IAEA verification regime at its declared nuclear sites. Disputes revolve around whether other sites should also be incuded in the inspection regime, NOT around whether Iran should be exempt from all verification regimes.
39 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:27 pm CESTJason, what I can see as pointless is debating with someone who chooses to give me a blanket assertion of his own superior mastery of the subject matter rather than point me to just ONE parcel of the huge body of evidence that supports his position, and chooses to attempt to portray my own understanding of the subject matter as so far beneath his own that it’s not worth his time to engage in the exercise. So sorry to have offended your sensibilities by attempting to have a discussion with someone who’s so obviously on a completely different intellectual plane than I inhabit.
I suppose it never occurred to you that rather than ‘just now getting around to researching the facts’, what I was saying is that my understanding of the facts is so different than yours that I’m honest enough to admit that perhaps I’ve connected the dots incorrectly? But of course, it’s not possible that you were using
"my inclusion of an acknowledgment of the limitations of my own level of analytical perfection as an attempt to discredit my entire argument." Because "Use of "I think" is simply being responsible, not a concession of a superior level of confidence granted to the other side." At least that’s what I’ve been told.
40 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:27 pm CESTThis is the kind of game-playing that drives me nuts. To say "I think" is not to grant only a "vague understanding". To use such a conventional phrase as "I think" as an excuse to claim superiority of knowledge or confidence level is infantile. To persist in doing so even after I object to it is an indication of ill intentions on your part.
41 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:28 pm CESTTo persist in doing so even after I object to it is an indication of ill intentions on your part.
LOL. And for YOU to do it (as I’ve just pointed out) after you objected to me doing it is an indication of what, exactly?
42 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:28 pm CESTI just posted several. But then again, what are facts compared to "assumptions" based on nothing but bias and word-play?
43 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:30 pm CESTYour comment with the links appeared while I was posting mine that followed it. But what good are assumptions of good faith when there’s a good opportunity for a ‘gotcha’?
44 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:32 pm CESTWhat are you talking about? I never accused you of lacking credibility because you used the phrase "I think". I accused you of lacking credibility on this argument for the more sound reason that you didn’t have any idea what you are talking about before making sweeping and radical "assumptions" about Iranian positions and intentions and condemning anyone who sees Iranian positions and intentions in more accurate and predictable terms.
45 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:34 pm CESTYou mean like your inaccurate and completely lame attempt at a gotcha game in #41?
But I understand the game here. Its easier to complain about my tone and tactics than to stick with the substance of the discussion where it has been shown that your entire basis for condemning the Obama proposals for "negotiations" was based on nothing more than completely unsupported and inaccurate assumptions about Iranian positions and behavior. Such “changing the subject” games are so predictable on blogs that it is ridiculous. We usually see subject-changing evasions from the lefties, but this thread and other recent ones show that it is hardly unknown on the right either.
I don’t have a problem per se discussing things with people who are ill-informed on a subject. But I get very irritated when their response to corrected information is to get pissy and change the subject to attack the person who does happen to know what they are talking about. (Only in the blogosphere is citing one’s own superior basis of information a BAD thing.) Unfortunately, that is pretty much the standard mode in comments threads. Hence, my conclusion that I am wasting my time.
46 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:43 pm CESTJason, what is ridiculous is that I came here to discuss and figure out why my own understanding of the situation is so different than yours, but you immediately started to respond to me as though I’m arguing in bad faith and you were the one who first started steering the discussion toward the tone and manner in which I was debating. As someone who has been a long time contributor and supporter of this blog, I find it puzzling why you’d respond to me as though I’m a typical talking point spouting Obama hatin’ troglodyte when I feel I’ve proven myself over time to be reasonably intelligent and open to having my views challenged by an honest presentation of facts.
47 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 7:48 pm CESThas been shown that your entire basis for condemning the Obama proposals for "negotiations" was based on nothing more than completely unsupported and inaccurate assumptions about Iranian positions and behavior
Well, quite honestly, Jason, I haven’t had time to verify any such thing because of the direction that the conversation took. I’ve only had a chance to click on one of your links, and haven’t had the opportunity to search out some materials that would explain my own position. You can declare yourself the winner and assume that any onlookers agree, but forgive me if I want to actually read what you submitted and have a chance to respond before I’d consider conceding.
48 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:52 pm CESTChristine, since this is about the 200th thread dedicated to repeating the same old anti-Obama arguments over and over again, you’ll have to forgive me for not maintaining faith in the willingness of anti-Obamans here to change their minds as a result of discussions about their misinterpretations and misinformation.
If my irritation makes me “obnoxious”, that may be a regrettable part of my personality OR it may be the inevitable result of MONTHS of having to respond to the exact same misinformation, distortions, and hypocrisies over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
49 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 7:54 pm CESTbut you immediately started to respond to me as though I’m arguing in bad faith…As someone who has been a long time contributor and supporter of this blog, I find it puzzling why you’d respond to me as though I’m a typical talking point spouting Obama hatin’ troglodyte when I feel I’ve proven myself over time to be reasonably intelligent and open to having my views challenged by an honest presentation of facts
Gee, I sense a trend.
50 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 8:00 pm CESTCount the posts and the bash-fests, Tully. Your side of these issues IS the trend. You’re just now starting to feel the unrestrained version of the REACTION to it.
So your choice is to stick to the substance of the issues and maybe actually have a debate or to keep up with all the misinformation and misrepresentations and hypocrisies and keep getting called on it by an "obnoxious" jerk like me.
I am also a “long-time contributor to and supporter of this blog”, but that can’t even buy me accurate quotations and representations of my views from the commenters that disagree (including you two), so stop playing the martyrs in this.
51 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 8:08 pm CESTMY side of "these issues?" I’m suddenly the poster boy for everyone and everything you hate? Even in areas where I haven’t said a word? Uh huh.
I would stick to the substance of the single issue I was posting on, Jason, BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY THERE.
Well, get right on with your hatefest, I guess.
52 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 8:12 pm CESTyou’ll have to forgive me for not maintaining faith in the willingness of anti-Obamans here to change their minds as a result of discussions about their misinterpretations and misinformation.
If that’s an actual admission that perhaps you are reacting unfairly to me because you are aggravated by other Obama opponents’ tactics (including, presumably, a good deal of annoyance at Michael’s tactics for which I feel you have good reason) then I accept the apology.
Still, it doesn’t make it easy to have a productive discussion.
So far I found this summary, which I feel supports my version of an Iran that’s been recalcitrant about allowing inspections (again, I’m not just looking at information for the first time now- I’m going back with a more critical eye to read things I’ve seen before and see if you are correct when you assert that my understanding is inaccurate.) You may be right in saying that this doesn’t necessarily represent a complete negation of the generally held understanding about what is required for negotiations to take place, but to me it’s not at all clear that Iran is acceptant of a requirement of verifiability with regard to its nuclear program. Isn’t that what the IAEA is trying to work toward? Isn’t that what the UN security council resolution was about, and sanctions? And if the US isn’t satisfied that sufficient verifiability is in place, then why would top level direct negotiations make any sense?
53 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 8:19 pm CESTRecalcitrance in the face of demands for additional inspections does not constitute an Iranian rejection of all current or future inspections regimes.
Yes, there is disagreement about what KINDS of inspections the Iranians would be held to. That is a subject that could only be resolved in negotiations. The Iranians obviously know that any "negotiations" would have an agenda item that included discussion of verification regimes.
There is no evidence that they have rejected the entire concept of verification. They have complained that current verification demands are too much for them to agree to, but that is far short of a complete rejection of all verification regimes.
In light of these facts, the blanket rejection of negotiations is bizarre. How could we ever even discuss what the Iranian objections are and find out what they MIGHT agree to without having negotiations? Also, the mere fact that they meet with the EU and and IAEA at all shows their willingness to negotiate the issue. And the fact that the Security Council found Iran in violation in 2005 shows that there are at least SOME inspections going on and that the dispute with Iran is about the SCOPE of inspections, not their EXISTENCE. At the point that Iran accepts ANY inspections, they clearly accept verification in principle. They just want to negotiate about its scope.
Verifiability is an OUTCOME of negotiations, not a precondition. If asserted as a precondition, then it makes negotiations a catch-22 since the precondition to negotiations could not be achieved except through negotiations. For the record, I disagree with the Iranian position, but believe that the ONLY practical way to move towards a more reasonable Iranian position begins with negotiations. Otherwise, all we get is the status quo — standoff — or a first-resort military assault that is extremely risky to say the least.
To link this back to the topic of this thread, there is ZERO evidence that the Obama proposal is just “taking their word for it”. I maintain and reiterate my (unrefuted) point that the Obama campaign is relying upon the NORMAL definition of “negotiations” in the same way that the EU and the IAEA are already doing with Iran’s participation.
54 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 8:26 pm CESTSince this was posted 8 minutes AFTER I provided specific quotations in #50, I am going to assume you’re just hoping no one will notice that your oft-repeated bluff has been re-raised. You may now either rise to the challenge to provide a substantive response or you may fold your (weak) hand.
55 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 8:49 pm CESTVerifiability is an OUTCOME of negotiations, not a precondition
But if the verifiability has already been tested and they’ve come up short (Iran actions weren’t in compliance with NPT-and then if I’m not mistaken they blustered quite a bit about their own interpretation of NPT and then insisted that their noncompliance shouldn’t have triggered a referral to the security council, and your own links show that they continue to propagandize internally about how the whole dispute is based on other countries’ political agendas instead of showing any admission that it was their own noncompliance with the BASIC verifiability tests of NPT that triggered the referral) then where does that leave us? As far as I’m concerned, that means that it’s perfectly appropriate to have certain channels of diplomacy still ongoing vis a vis IAEA, but for the US to precondition any face to face talks on having a verification procedure that won’t allow for lapses and clandestine weapons programs. You ask how we would know what Iran would agree to- we’ll know by what comes out in the IAEA negotiations and through other lower level diplomatic channels.
For all your complaints about people misstating Obama’s position, you seem to continue to conflate all of his opponents with some subgroup which doesn’t think that anyone, anywhere, should speak with the government of Iran.
56 C Stanley
May 12, 2008 @ 9:00 pm CESTTo link this back to the topic of this thread, there is ZERO evidence that the Obama proposal is just “taking their word for it”.
I would agree that that’s not a fair characterization of his proposal (though I will again point out that it’s also fair to question what his proposal actually is, since one of his advisors is now denying that he ever said that he’ll meet face to face with Amadinajad.) But I think what the honest critics of Obama are saying is that we believe that there’s no point in negotiating the process of verifiability with a party that has already proven to be untrustworthy- since they’ve already broken the terms the previously signed onto.
57 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 9:11 pm CESTSince this was posted 8 minutes AFTER I provided specific quotations in #50, I am going to assume you’re just hoping no one will notice that your oft-repeated bluff has been re-raised. You may now either rise to the challenge to provide a substantive response or you may fold your (weak) hand.
Done and done, and thank you very much for assigning some kind of blame on me for not monitoring two threads simultaneously. The octopus borrowed my other two hands. I’ve BEEN providing substantive response and begging for citations for quite a while, and received absolutely nothing but content-free near-psychotic vitriol in return, including copious personal insults. You must have been reading your Bizarro-world Dale Carnegie books.
58 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 9:16 pm CESTWHINE WHINE WHINE…
Well, since I provided exactly the content you requested on the other thread in #50 and I provided links on this one (you are apparently blending the two threads completely now), clearly your claim that you "received absolutely nothing but content-free" in return is yet another falsehood on your part.
And since you are the only one on this thread to call someone else "near-psychotic", I don’t think you get to WHINE about "copious personal insults" either.
Nope. Gordon and Trainer, The Generals’ War.
Go cool down.
59 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 9:17 pm CESTBut I think what the honest critics of Obama are saying is that we believe that there’s no point in negotiating the process of verifiability with a party that has already proven to be untrustworthy- since they’ve already broken the terms the previously signed onto.
That would be my take. Then again, I do not assume that Obama is actually going to follow up on what he says. He may be saying it for other reasons. Politicians say many things while running for office that they do intend to actually do when they reach office. And that’s not all bad.