In Spring 2006 I went to a lecture by Lee Hamilton, Vice Chair of the 9\11 commission. While I can't remember his quote word-for-word, when asked about how we were dealing with Iran, he said,

"During the cold war the Soviets were our absolute enemy. We openly called them evil, and we tried to actively undermine them at every turn. We fought wars intended to weaken them. But we never, ever, refused to talk to them. No matter what the rhetoric or international situation, we always kept diplomatic channels open."

Coming from him, I took this to heart. So when I see Obama getting dragged through the mud for saying that he would continue the tradition of keeping diplomatic ties with countries, even though we consider them our enemy, I had to scratch my head. I do think that the "without precondition" caveat in the U-tube question was thrown in with the knowledge that putting conditions on diplomacy is a defining characteristic of this administration. Therefore, I think Obama saying that he would meet with enemies is much like voting "no" on Bush's foreign policy approach - its not a nuanced answer, but televised debates aren't nuanced events, and he's clarified his response a lot since.

Calling anybody Bush-Cheney lite is pretty insulting, but the mudslinging had to start sometime soon. For what its worth, I don't think Clinton really supports the Bush way of doing things - its just a way to play the experience card. Regardless, I'm more committed to the candidate that calls it like it is and acknowledges that dictating terms before even talking to foreign nations has gotten us nowhere.

JW: Nicely said. Apart from experience, what else does Hillary have? Personability, Communication Skills, Natural political genius like her husband. If this race b/w Obama and Hillary started even in the first place (I'm not so naive to think any of them ever do) she would already ahve been out of it. She needs to wake up every day and say, "Thank God for my husband!"

To blindly say that he would just come out and talk to anyone who wants to, in effort to put distance between himself and the current policy is naive. Far be it from me to ever agree with Hillary on,,, well,,, ummmm...... anything really ........but she was actually correct.

Going oversea's to talk to these countries without knowing what your doing can be a disaster, take Pelosi last trip to Syria where she proved that when it comes to the history of the region and the people she was speaking whith....she proved herself to be utterly clueless.

Well he certainly said it, but in my opinion he didn't say it "blindly." This is a political race, with all the distortions, oversimplifications, and soundbites that America can take. Therefore, I don't think Obama supports a policy of meeting with anyone, anytime, for no reason. He himself has said so. Its ridiculous to think that he, or anyone else intelligent enough to organize a political campaign, would just meet with world leaders without establishing any diplomatic overtures. So might sounds naive, but such is the nature of the soundbite. I'm reading between the lines - Obama is saying that he will be a more diplomatic-minded president than Bush is.

you have missed the central point, Obama said he would have (cold) talks with the other leaders while Hillary said she would talk after the preliminary meetings have taken place.

There are no such thing as "cold" talks. Leaders don't just meet for the hell of it. You need an issue. You need an agenda. You need to observe protocol and ceremony, and create a proper schedule. All this stuff takes months to happen, and nobody is going to go ahead and start the process without engaging in some basic policy-making thinking about why they are having the talks. Its a myth to think that leaders can just meet up and talk shop without having anything invested in the meeting. What Obama is saying (and has said over and over again in the past few days) is that he is repudiating Bush's overall policy of refusing all negotiations with enemy nations. Clinton and Obama have the same exact policy on this, Clinton is just expressing greater caution to make a political gain in the election.

The people who think that 'preliminary meetings' 'with conditions' prevent a leader from making mistakes are obviously forgetting that GWBush had nothing but preliminaries, refused to speak to all sorts of people who are our enemies, and screwed us because of it.

You're right JW. Additionally the question would "you" meet with X, does not necessarily mean The President of the United States meeting with X. It means his cabinet, employees of the State Department and so forth, i.e., his administration in a plural sense. Clinton knew this, and intentionally blew Obama's doors off as if to suggest that Obama was saying that he, personally, would meet.

Like jwschmidt, I'm more committed to the candidate who calls it like it is [Obama] and acknowledges that dictating terms before even talking to foreign nations has gotten us nowhere.

I don't fault Obama far calling her Bush-Cheney lite. It shows that Hillary is not the only one who can withstand the Republican machine. I would've been disappointed if he had given Hillary a free pass.

The author is clearly pro-Hillary, but I don't understand why he included links of stories that could damage Hillary's campaign especially with the anti-war sentiment. There's NOWHERE she asked for an exit strategy. Infact most of the things she said were in support of Bush-Cheney and the war. Here are some of the things she said:

".. because I did support the president. And I did so based on, you know, my assessment of what kind of potential threat Saddam Hussein did represent and the need, frankly, for the world community to accept responsibility"

- Sadam was no threat.

".. there’s a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity. And when I talked to the AEI people, you know the Atomic Energy Institute people and the like, and I said well, what do you mean? How far are we away from that? They said, you know, six months to seven years. Six months is a very short time period.."

- Iraq had no biological weapons. And she said she talked to IAEA who informed her Iraq would have nuclear capacity in about 6 months. So George Bush didn't mislead her after all.

My God!

Sorry, but although Saddam may not have been a "threat" in the dictionary sense, he was a thorn in our side, a major drain on us. He was a festering wound. Every intelligence estimate pointed that out, and was considered serious enough the Congress passed a resolution favoring regime change there during the Clinton presidency.

Don't forget we had been flying air sorties 24/7 for 12 years over that country, were being fired on regularly; our control of that country's skies were stoking the hatred of the Arab and Islamic Middle East, propping up Osama's propaganda; we required many thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia (Osama's "holy land") to keep Saddam "in his box," a UN sanctions "box" which was crippling the Iraqis and their infrastructure while enriching Saddam and his sons and corrupting the UN.

Something had to be done in regard to Saddam.

Not to say that invading and occupying the country was the right move. But we simply must get away from this idea that Saddam, or at least our relationship with Saddam, was benign or "not a threat," or that because he had no forensic link to 9/11 he didn't also represent a perfect symbol of the sickness in the Arab world which breeds jihadism.

The one thing the idiot in the White House had right is that we needed to do something dramatic in the heart of the Middle East post-9/11, not in Afghanistan, which is actually a sideshow. Too bad he got it so wrong.

And why do you need to call yourself a "compassionate" conservative. The whole idea of being conservative - smaller government, less taxes, free markets, more opportunites for individuals to run their lives - is ultimately far more humane and compassionate. The last compassionate conservative I heard is George W. Bush, the Big Spending, Big Invasive Government Christianist right-wingers.

Well, those of us who say Saddam was "not a threat" are speaking shorthand for "Saddam was not a threat that had to be met with an invasion and occupation." You seem to agree with this.

Secondly, afghanistan was by no means a sideshow - thats where someone named Osama Bin Laden and his group called Al Qaida was. Today it is written off as a sideshow by those who believe that Iraq represented a real front in the war on terror. Iraq may have been a "thorn in our side," but you do not deal with thorns of that nature by waging war.

Our planes were getting shot at because we were flying inside of Iraq as a matter of our ongoing containment. We bombed Iraq when we felt like it. Of course something needed to be done, but something needs to be done in Darfur. Something needs to be done in Myanmar. Something needs to be done in Venezuela. Something needs to be done in almost every middle eastern country. We don't charge in to these places because we recognize that the costs probably won't be offset by the benefits.

Both Clinton and Obama are making a return to a rational foreign policy the core of their campaigns, as they should. They recognize that the war on terror cannot be fought with wholesale of invasions of nations and attempts to reconstruct entire regions of the world. Do you?

Are we arguing JW? I don't think so. You'll notice that I specifically state that wholesale invasion and occupations were not the answer. The only thing we disagree on is what Afghanistan represents.

Here's my point about it being a sideshow: 9/11 happens. We bomb and oust the Taliban in short order. We chase and kill and capture many Al Queda. We keep others on the run and in so doing make them unable to design and commit large-scale 9/11 attacks from that country. AQ's base in Afghanistan is pretty much wiped out. That's all a good thing and of course a basic prerequisite and the first thing on the to-do list.

But what next? We hear a lot about "finishing the job" in Afghanistan. What does that actually mean? "Rebuild" Afghanistan, a country which has never even been "built" to being with? What cost in time, money and American lives will that take? And what about "blowback" and the image of us being a dominating infidel occupiers of Muslims?

And let's say we "rebuild" it beautifully and it becomes a model of Islamic modernity, stability and tolerance. That can only be a good thing, but so what in regard to terrorists? The center of the jihadist beast beats in the Arab world, not Afghanistan.

It's like saying, "Focus on the Japanese in Guadalcanal. Spends years and lives and billions of dollars turning it into an impenetrable fortress," while allowing the heart of Japanese war production, propaganda, organization, finances and so on untouched in Tokyo.

The real value to Afghanistan was symbolic to AQ. It has almost no natural resources or infrastructure. The 9/11 hijackers were not Afghans. All were Arabs, most from Saudi Arabia, and they learned their 9/11 killing skills in the United States and other Western countries.

The propaganda, finances, jihadists, organization, planning and general projection of jihadist violence is all mainly produced and emanates from the Arab world. If we are not focusing on that, we are not focusing on our enemies.

Again, I am not suggesting that the right move is to invade and occupy an Arab country. But it is perfectly reasonable, strategic and proper to want to radically modify how the Arab world operates, not Afghanistan.

I would love a President Clinton or Obama to confront the Arab world politically, economically and otherwise put whatever pressure is prudent and necessary on them.

It is far more emotionally satisfying, and politically useful, to say that Iraq has "distracted" us from Afghanistan, but it is almost on the verge of being a-strategic.

"Going oversea's to talk to these countries without knowing what your doing can be a disaster, take Pelosi last trip to Syria where she proved that when it comes to the history of the region and the people she was speaking whith....she proved herself to be utterly clueless."

obama never said that he was going to "invite them over for a cup of tea next week." obviously he would put in place envoys and prepare. however, in a debate knonw more for its 60 second soundbites, what obama was trying to get across was that he would not follow the busy-cheney policies of not speaking to our enemies.