hmmm...

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

Is that Nietzschean abyss growing? Or is Obama just playing to the rubes?

It's neither. It's a pathetic and ultimately futile attempt to avoid being labled a pig fucking Manchurian Candidate by the mouth-breather brigade.

So he was lying? He approved of what Carter was doing?

Is it just possible that people of good will can agree that negotiating with terrorists is undesireable?

No, he wasn't lying. I have no doubt Obama would never negotiate with Hamas, precisely because he believes he'd be mooslim-baited, just like Carter is, until the day he dies.

He doesn't understand that he will be mooslim-baited regardless, as the Bush address and the McCain concurrence demonstrates.

And by the way, Olmert is negotiating with Hamas as we speak. So much for undesirable.

OK, so Obama would decline to negotiate with Hamas, not because doing so would be wrong or counter to Obama's principles, but only because it would be politically inexpedient?

Negotiating with Hamas is not a "principle." It's one possible means of abiding by a principle - that of limiting the death toll among both Israelis and Palestians (one the current administration does not share).

Obama will never negotiate with Hamas. Even if he wanted to, it wouldn't work because Washington - Democrats included - would go absolutely apeshit. Just like they did with Carter.

Does anybody feel the hypocrisy of a President whose Grandfather made the family money by selling steel to Adolf Hitler, whose father made another fortune by forming the Carlyle Group with the Bin Laden Family, and who himself was set up in the oil business by Salem, Osama Bin Laden's older Brother?

Just wondering.

Do you think the Israelis feel a bit used after a lame duck, or maybe just lame, President used their parliament to deliver a transparent and fairly stupid political attack?

Not negotiating with Hamas in specific may not be a "principle", but surely not negotiating with entities that espouse terrorism as tactic and policy - couldn't that be a principle? That seems to be what Obama is saying. Either he is lying and grandstanding and doesn't believe what he's saying, or he DOES believe it and he's part of the same abyss you see embodied in Bush's speech.

I could really care less about Dubya's grandpappy.

I think Israelis - most, anyway - feel used by a president who bullied their government into a catastrophic war against Hezbollah, forced elections that put Hamas into power and who started a civil war in Gaza that left Hamas stronger than ever.

surely not negotiating with entities that espouse terrorism as tactic and policy - couldn't that be a principle?

No, it's not a principle. It's an idiotic and meaningless nostrum. It's why we have laws, policies, treaties...and not just a sign with the Golden Rule in 5,000-point type.

The United States negotiates with terroristic entities as a matter of course, even under Mr. Moral Clarity. A negotiation is principled if it's purpose is to save lives and promote peace. It is unprincipled if it serves narrow interests and gets more people killed.

Bush's speech, and more broadly his foreign policy, is an abyss because it it neither principled or unprincipled. It doesn't secure narrow interests or save lives. It's just batshit crazy. Nihilistic, even.

Does anybody feel the hypocrisy of a President whose Grandfather made the family money by selling steel to Adolf Hitler

From the screenplay of the brilliant Judgment at Nuremberg:

Your Honor...
it is my duty...
to defend Ernst Janning.
And yet, Ernst Janning has said he is guilty.
There is no doubt he feels his guilt.
He made a great error
in going along with the Nazi movement...
hoping it would be good for his country.
But if he is to be found guilty...
there are others who also went along...
who also must be found guilty.
Ernst Janning said:
"We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
Why did we succeed, Your Honor?
What about the rest of the world?
Did it not know the intentions
of the Third Reich?
Did it not hear the words
of Hitler's broadcasts all over the world?
Did it not read his intentions
in Mein Kampf...
published in every corner of the world?
Where is the responsibility
of the Soviet Union...
who signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler...
that enabled him to make war?
Are we now to find Russia guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the Vatican...
who signed in the concordat
with Hitler...
giving him his first tremendous prestige?
Are we now to find the Vatican guilty?
Where is the responsibility
of the world leader Winston Churchill...
who said in an open letter
to the London Times in 1938 - 1938!
"Were England to suffer a national disaster,
I should pray to God...
"to send a man of the strength of mind
and will of an Adolf Hitler."
Are we now
to find Winston Churchill guilty?
Where is the responsibility
of those American industrialists...
who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments,
and profited by that rebuilding?
Are we now to find
the American industrialists guilty?
No, Your Honor.
Germany alone is not guilty.
The whole world is as responsible for Hitler
as Germany.
It is an easy thing
to condemn one man in the dock.
It's easy to condemn the German people...
to speak of the basic flaw
in the German character...
that allowed Hitler to rise to power,
but also...
comfortably ignore
the basic flaw of character...
that made the Russians sign pacts with him,
Winston Churchill praise him...
American industrialists profit by him.
Ernst Janning said he is guilty.
If he is...
Ernst Janning's guilt is the world's guilt.
No more, no less.

If what you're trying to get me to say is that Obama is typical politician I agree wholeheartedly.

Bush is not a typical politician, and what he's saying is something entirely different. He's saying negotiation with terroristic entities isn't merely undesirable or likely to fail, but that it's impossible in all instances - presumably because terrorists are inherently irrational.

As Yglesias points out, Bush's defines diplomacy as making "convincing arguments and beat[ing] your enemies back with force of words" He claims the Democrats want "some ingenious argument will persuade them they [the terrorists] have been wrong all along."

I think Bush really believes that, and is therefore not disingenuous but a fucking nut. You can't argue with a madman.

It's interesting how the most anti-European clique of American culture desperately clings to "principles," when the greatest contribution to moral thought that American thinkers have made is that practices are what we ought to value, not principles.

Sucking dick is a crime. Torture is bravado.

____________________________

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

This whole discussion is nonsense predicated on W's belligerence.

Exactly. But that belligerence has real consequences. McCain has now entirely written off talks with Hamas that he endorsed just a few months ago. No politician interested in winning elections is going to try to nuance Hitler appeasement, and thus Bush is effectively locking in the Likudnik position as policy for the foreseeable future.

It's what political scientists call rhetorical coercion (PDF).

Yes, oh yes. Charles Pierce makes this point about Obama's campaign.

Obama believes he can implement "change" by making an end-run around the political minefield of the Bush years. We'll just put it all behind us.

It's a long trip from talking to negotiating to appeasing.

I think all Obama is saying is "Cut that shit out and and you can join the world community and prosper. Or you can keep it up and we'll see what happens. You won't like it."

Clinton is saying basically the same thing, except she would send diplomats to say it and only agree to sit down with them if they get serious about cutting that shit out.

It's a long trip from talking to negotiating to appeasing.

It used to be. There also used to be a big gap on the continuum between an "emerging" threat, an "urgent" threat and an "imminent" threat. But now most politicians use the terms interchangeably.

Brooks is not the sharpest tack in the drawer, nor is he neutral in this discussion being rather conservative at times. That said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html

Take that David Brooks column, substitute Irgun for every reference to Hezbollah, and see if it makes any sense.