Originally published on the CGS blog on May 22, 2008.
In today’s Washington Post, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, in written answers to the U.S. Senate said the possibility of military action against Iran should be retained as a “last resort.” But he said the United States “should make every effort to engage by use of the whole of government, developing further leverage rather than simply targeting discrete threats.”
OK, let me get this straight. The President of the United States, that’s George W. Bush, visits Israel last week, and in a speech before the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem, proclaimed :
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them.” After a reference to Nazi tanks rolling into Poland, the president continued: “We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement.”
Not wanting to be left out of the debate, Senator John McCain followed Bush’s remarks by calling out Senator Barack Obama. McCain questioned why Obama would ever consider meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.”
So, on one hand you have the president, and his party’s presumptive nominee for president — McCain — saying that negotiating with a nation like Iran needs to be called “what it is – the false comfort of appeasement”, while Bush’s hand-picked top military leader is arguing for a full-court press on the diplonatic front with Iran, ala Obama.
Bush and McCain: Do you side with Petraeus and Obama and diplomacy, or not? Time for a little straight talk, gentleman.
