The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email

AmSpecBlog

Questions for John McCain

John McCain knows a lot more about diplomacy than I do, which isn't tough since I don't know anything. But ignorant voters like me must muddle through the issue as best we can. So I ask, earnestly, that someone explain to me why Senator McCain's criticism of Barack Obama makes sense.

"It's the highest degree of naivete and inexperience that would indicate that anyone would want to sit down in face to face talks with the Iranians, including their president, who just a few days ago pronounced Israel a 'stinking corpse,'" McCain said.

He asked rhetorically, "My question ... to Senator Obama is, what do you want to talk about with him? President Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel is a 'stinking corpse'? That they want to wipe Israel off the map? That they continue to supply these terrible, most lethal, explosive devices that are killing young Americans? What do you want to talk to him about?"

Geez, isn't it obvious? Obama wants to talk about Iran's indefensible attitude toward Israel, its nuclear program and its meddling in Iraq! Am I missing something here?

McCain said he would only support talks with Iran if the Persian nation retracted its rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, abandoned its nuclear weapons program, stopped exporting weapons, and stopped sponsoring terrorism.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but if all those things happened wouldn't any need to talk to Iran be obviated? It just seems so weird to say, "We're not going to negotiate unless you concede everything we'd hope to gain in negotiations."

I actually doubt that sitting down with the leader of Iran will improve our relationship, but I can't say that if John McCain or Barack Obama decided to give it a try I'd lose much sleep over it -- seems unlikely that it would make the Iranians hate Israel more, or seek a nuclear weapon more aggressively, or meddle in Iraq even more.

"I feel in the strongest terms that if you sat down across the table from these state sponsors of terrorist organizations, you would give them prestige enhancement and a bigger influence in the region, which I think would directly counter to America's national security interests," McCain said.

I wish Sen. McCain would articulate the process by which this would happen. I'm prepared to be convinced that "across the table" meetings are a bad idea. But I don't understand the cause and effect relationship he asserts. Are there Middle Eastern states that aren't allied with us who would look upon Iran more favorably were we to meet with them? Which states? In what ways would Iran's influence therefore be greater? How would this influence threaten our security.

If I don't understand these things I'm sure other voters don't either. Please, Senator McCain, help us better understand your position.Your arguments aren't nearly as obvious as you seem to think they are.

topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Nuclear Weapons

Comments

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

Are you in a mob?

The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?

         

Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Members to Watch

Philip Klein

* * * *

The 39 Democrats Who Voted "No"

Philip Klein

* * * *

Pelosi's Pyrrhic Victory?

Philip Klein

* * * *

Pro-Life Amendment Passes Easily

Philip Klein

* * * *

The Stupak Amendment

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

One Step Forward, Two Races Back

George Neumayr

* * * *

Divisive Unanimity

Daniel J. Flynn

* * * *

Joe Wilson, Call Your Office

Larry Thornberry

* * * *

ACORN's Big Spender

Matthew Vadum

* * * *

The Spirit of 1989

Doug Bandow

* * * *

The Somali-Kenya Connection

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Tex Mess

William Murchison

* * * *

Feeding the Beast

Philip Klein

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT