I cannot agree. Remember, the context of my statement was the "brilliant verbal 'chess' move" by President Bush.
Yes, it was quite brilliant. He likened people who are willing to talk to 'the enemy' to Nazi appeasers. He explicitly mentioned Iran as the enemy.
A brilliant move to implicitly accuse Obama of being a Nazi appeaser - whatever that's supposed to mean.
Of course, it would be an equally brilliant move now to point out that Bush completely changed course and came around to follow Obama's strategy - which is meeting and talking to Iranian representatives. Merely talking in a context of "brilliant verbal 'chess' moves", though.
What President Bush said to the Israelis (who obviously are an anti-Nazi audience) does not necessarily have anything to do with the present possible willingness to talk to the Iranians. You seem to be looking for absolutes in a world of diplomacy, where absolutes might not be the rule?
No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the neocon Bush administration claimed, for over seven years, that there were absolutes
. That there was no way of talking to "radicals and terrorists". Never ever. Impossible. Can't do.
Me, I'm perfectly fine with a policy that acknowledges that there's not just black and white. That there's room for diplomacy. That you can even talk to radicals. That it's not appeasement to talk to Iran. Perfectly fine.
I'm just amused at all the conservatives - in the media as well as here on A2K - who parroted Bush's talking point just a few weeks ago, and now look pretty much like idiots by the sudden about-face of the Bush admin.
But, I might be the wrong person to discuss whether it would have been correct to talk to the Nazis, since my background is Jewish. That variable should disqualify me as an impartial respondent to your question. Ta-ta.
I don't think that makes you the wrong person. Quite the opposite. If you're not an impartial respondent, it would seem that successful resolution would be more important to you than a tough, principled, black-or-white, no diplomacy kind of approach just for the heck of it.
That's where you're likely different than all the chicken-hawks here who don't really have a serious interest in the outcome.