Email: exception on Iran

Tom got this email:

Mr. Barnett:

Saturday's Wall Street Journal [08/18-19/2007, pg A7] had an op-ed piece, almost in response to your column in the Knoxville News Sentinel last Sunday [08/12/2007, pg. G5]. The WSJ article pointed out that "Tehran has no interest in resolving (our problems) at a conference table." It also pointed out a whole bunch of times we -- including the Bush administration -- had talked with Tehran.

Just advocating that we "go talk with our enemies" is a bit ingenuous, don't you think? Still, the column probably was a plus for Mr. Obama.

Tom writes:

We've consistently rejected Iran's serious overtures going back years, a policy well documented by former NSC desk hand Flynt Leverett (Google him) and then cite Iran's intransigence and rhetoric--in venues of our concocting--as evidence that no talks are warranted.

"Disingenuous" is a polite term for the sort of stubborn strategic stupidity that costs American lives each day in Iraq.

But when you elect people who disdain diplomacy, you get the enemies and the wars you deserve.

Comments

[Brian H]

If you can come up, using your wildest imagination, with a hypothetical compromise that encompasses any of the interlocked goals of the Iranian regime and is not hugely repulsive and contra-survival to the Core, let's hear it. Otherwise, ....

[Jarrod Myrick]

Brian H,

Read his f---ing books.