In "A Contrary View," Jay, unfortunately, mis-characterized what I said about talking with .
I don't think I said, and I certainly didn't mean to say, that "any overture toward by the U.S. government would be viewed as a sign of weakness." What I did say was, "Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed 'aggressive personal diplomacy' will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism." I also said, "I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's 'Realistic Idealism' to the false hope of Obama's 'aggressive personal diplomacy.'"
I meant to convey my concern about Obama's naive statement that he will "meet with any leader of any state, including 's Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions."
ian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel; is pursuing nuclear weapons; and his Revolutionary Guard is training Iraqis to kill American military personnel in Iraq.
It is dangerous to offer to meet with Ahmadinejad without insisting that the rogue state change its belligerent ways -- serial statements about a world without America; parades in ian cities with participants shouting “Death to America”; active efforts to kill and maim Americans and Iraqis; ’s support for the Hezbollah terrorists, which until the 9/11 terror attacks, had killed more Americans than any other terror group; and 's refusal to obey the UN Security Council's demands that cease its nuclear weapons development.
Talking for talking sake will not move any closer toward acceptable conduct. No, such an unsophisticated policy will only convince the ians that their current abhorrent behavior got them what they wanted.