James Baker on appeasement

I'm still pretty angry over what Bush said about appeasement in front of the Knesset, the Israeli Legislature, some days ago. I know, it may seem like old news to some of you, but I don't share that view. Just because our agenda-setting gatekeepers in our corporate media no longer deem it news, doesn't mean it isn't. In addition, there are some developments along this front that I'll get to in a minute.

Anyway, the footage above is former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, appearing on Hannity & Colmes to talk about appeasement. I wish I could find a longer clip of this - a seasoned and respected diplomat explaining to the uneducated Hannity and the shrinking violet Holmes what diplomacy actually entails.

However, even this minute-long footage is a good example of Baker not towing the neocon line that "talking to our enemies is appeasement." And I also love it how Hannity seems to be swallowing his tongue - the guy just doesn't know what to say.

It's also not surprising that President Bush doesn't know the meaning of the word diplomacy, either. What I found particularly amusing (and tragic) was that Bush was willing to roll the dice in front of the whole world, saying in no uncertain terms that talking to our enemies is not a good idea. He made himself look like the imbecile he truly is.

Whether Baker meant to or not (I'm guessing he did), he pretty much blew Bush's assertion out of the water about not talking to our enemies. While Baker has obviously never been president, it's pretty clear that his pinkie knows more about diplomacy than Bush's entire body. In fact, what Bush knows about diplomacy you could fit on the head of a needle and still have room for the yellow pages.

What's more, in recent days, Israel and Syria have sat down for talks at the peace table. No truth the the rumor that Bush will re-appear before the Knesset to call Israel's leaders appeasers.

Here's wondering if deep down, Baker doesn't regret his intervention (at the behest of Bush 41) in the whole Florida mess in the fall of 2000, which ultimately paved the way for the Supreme Court to anoint Bush president. If Baker could go Back to the Future. ...

Is NBC's Ann Curry siding with terrorists?

I woke up this morning to NBC's Ann Curry interviewing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the Today Show. I'm wondering if NBC or Curry will come under similar fire for meeting with al-Assad like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did just over a month ago. Of course, Curry should not take heat for her lengthy interview with the Syrian president (nor will she), just like Pelosi should not have. But, the right-wing hate mongers won't come after Curry, because she's not the first female speaker of the house - Pelosi is.

What's more, word out of Washington is that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may soon be meeting with Syrian and Iranian officials to discuss peace in the Middle East. I don't know if the rumors will prove to be true, but perhaps the Bush administration is finally learning a lesson they should have realized four or five years ago - to talk to your enemy isn't a weakness, and it's not making concessions - it's trying to resolve disputes, avert further violence, and maybe even (GASP!) realize peace in the world's most violent meat grinder known as the Middle East.

Korean deal needlessly delayed

It's amazing to me how the Bush Administration will go to just about any lengths to pat itself on the back, even when it flies in the face of facts and reason.

For some perspective on the deal that was just struck with North Korea to suspend its nuclear weapons program, one must go back to January 2001. The Clintons were leaving the White House, and the Bushes were moving in. The mood in the new administration was decidedly anti-Clinton.

Along that vein, the dialogue America had with North Korea, Iraq and the combatants in Israeli / Palestinian conflict vanished almost overnight. The general modus operandi of the new administration about most policies was if the old Clinton team supported a policy, it was anathema to the Bushes. Out with the old (even if successful) and in with the new. (Honestly, this just isn't my opinion, either; books by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former Anti-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke outlined this turn of events in their books.) Tragically, that also included an obsession with Al Qaeda, but that's the subject for another post.

The newly installed neocons in the White House derided the Clinton Administration, both covertly and overtly, for negotiating with countries like North Korea. One didn't have to be a diplomat to read between those lines - Clinton and his minions were all being pussies - the Bushes weren't going to give North Korea a plug nickel, and no, they still can't have a nuclear weapon, thank you very much.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when word out of the Korean peninsula was that a deal had been reached between the North Koreans and the U.S., China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Korea has agreed to halt its nuclear weapons program in return for millions of gallons of crude oil and other aid. In other words, exactly what the Koreans agreed to in 1994.

During Bush's first term, had the president decided to negotiate with the North Koreans, who knows? Perhaps they would not have acquired a nuclear weapon, which most believe the country has, at least in small quantities.

The heart of the problem is that the Bush Administration equates dialogue with weakness and concession. It's not. But differences can be overcome between sworn enemies if there is dialogue. Even during the Cold War, American presidents met with their Soviet adversaries.

I do have hope that the Bush Administration will learn the value of diplomacy from the Korean experience by beginning talks with the Iranians and Syrians. Much can be accomplished and learned by talking to your enemy. One thing's for sure - one can't learn anything about an adversary if there is no dialogue.

It's too bad that this administration is so driven by ideology and much less by common sense and diplomacy. But, it's not too late. It's just too bad that we still have a president learning on the job over six years after his inauguration.