Matthew Yglesias » Palin Denounces Negotiations Without Preconditions, Supports Negotiations Without Preconditions

Oct 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am

Palin Denounces Negotiations Without Preconditions, Supports Negotiations Without Preconditions

One of the virtues of Sarah Palin being badly underbriefed about national security issues, is that she has to rely on common sense to bluff her way through questions, and she keeps accidentally straying from conservative dogma. When asked about the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war, she said she embraced the doctrine, but then actually outlined a much more reasonable “imminent threat” standard for action. And here she is talking about negotiations without preconditions:

WILLIAMS: What — first of all, what in your mind is a precondition?

PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a– a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that — that’s — that’s some ill-preparedness right there.

That’s just not what preconditions are. As Ilan Goldenberg says, she’s talking about the need to prepare before a meeting, which is different, “not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiating until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed.” That’s our current policy — that we need to isolate Iran until they preemptively give in to all our demands, and then we can talk. Obama’s proposal is also Palin’s proposal — to negotiate first in hopes of getting a deal. Of course you have to prepare. You don’t just fire up Air Force One and head to Pyongyang without some kind of bargaining strategy and preliminary meetings. But that’s uncontroversial.

Comments
53

Filed under: Diplomacy, Iran, National Security

53 Responses to “Palin Denounces Negotiations Without Preconditions, Supports Negotiations Without Preconditions”

someBrad Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Did she not watch the first debate, where just this topic was discussed?
Ginger Yellow Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Indeed. The funny thing is that when Obama said much the same thing about preparation during the debate, McCain attacked him for it.
Jason Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
This is—without caveat—the worst candidate for national elective office I have seen in my lifetime.
Kali Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well, Sarah was pretty sure Obama was talking about doing an unannounced drop-in on Kim Jong Il, having watched movies the whole way to No. Korea and totally blowing off planning any kind of strategic objectives in advance.

Yes, only an idiot who is capable of such lunacy is nuts enough to even dream up such a possiblity, but her answer to Williams says it all.
El Cid Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
What does sovereignty mean to her?
asl Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Obama’s proposal is also Palin’s proposal

Yes, that’s quite true except that Obama would bring pie to a meeting while Palin would bring moose burgers.
Kali Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
I just can’t stop laughing at seeing Palin using the term “ill-preparedness” about someone else.
theCoach Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Preparing for negotiations would serioulsy dilute the maverickitude required to pull these negotiations off. You have to wing it. If there is one thing we have learned from cop shows in the seventies and eighties, you need to trust your gut — go with your hunches, no matter what the ‘experts’ say. So your boss is gonna chew you out for blowin’ stuff up, the only way to get results is to wing it, maverick style. McCain understands this, my friends.
Adagio Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Sarah Palin calling Obama naive is just beyond ridiculous.
Trevor J Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Every time she says “seek to destroy” and “her allies,” I die a little more inside. Please make her go away.
David B. Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Some children do not have maps . . .
cube Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Matt,

Your overthinking. She did not understand the question. She doesn’t know what a “precondition” is.
DAS Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
she has to rely on common sense to bluff her way through questions, and she keeps accidentally straying from conservative dogma.

A more cynical read is that she’s doing what conservative politicians have long done: representing common sense positions as if they were the positions meant by the language used in conservative dogma even though those positions are liberal positions and even though any normal person would, in any non-political context, interpret the language used in conservative dogma quite differently.

E.g. the Bush doctrine has long been represented as if we should attack if there is imminent danger, which is just common sense, and that we liberals are dirty hippy appeasers for opposing that doctrine. Even though the Bush doctrine actually is something quite different and the “common sense” approach is what we liberals actually believe … that doesn’t stop the right from trying to misrepresent our positions as well as their own.

Palin’s “common sense” is no breath of fresh air but rather is, deliberate or not, keeping in the conservative tradition of misrepresenting the conservative agenda as if it were made up of common sense opinions and misrepresenting the liberal agenda as if it were way to the left of the common sense things actually in the liberal agenda.
Chris Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think the explanation is simple: she bought her party’s strawmanning of Obama’s position. She doesn’t know she’s agreeing with Obama on the substance because she doesn’t know Obama’s real view on the substance, only the fake view her party attributes to him.
Ryan S Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Sarah understands that men hate the pop-in. What if the evil dictator is in the shower? Or he’s got people over? What’s the matter with you, Barack? You can’t call ahead. I’m busy here. And the place is a mess. Look, I’m sorry, I just can’t meet with you now. Call me later. We’ll talk. We’ll figure out a time. Sheesh.
Becca Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The psychos in the RNC put up Palin, knowing she was toxic, and then dared the press and the left to openly point that out (”Just say it! You all think she’s Trailer Trash too, you snobby elites!). They had “Joe Plumber” in the hopper, just waiting for the (seemingly) perfect patsy. “Joe Six-Pack” and “Hockey Mom” are just more totems.

How ironic the GOP would be the party of false idols.
dizzyg Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Ahmadinejad Ahmadinejad Ahmadinejad Ahmadinejad Ahmadinejad

Every time she says that name, I can’t help but think that she only name checks him because she can. You just know that she practiced pronouncing “Ahmadinejad” for hours.

It’s kind of cute, because when she spits out that name she always seems a little proud of herself.
duBois Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I’ve got a campaign song for McCain-Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGqroT1FZ5Y
An Outhouse Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“Obama’s proposal is also Palin’s proposal ”

Unless the interviewer states that, her low information,racist, fire breathing followers will believe that Obama is out of control crazy because what she outlined seemed very reasonable.
cemmcs Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Palin is sharp and a natural politician but not prepared for the national stage. She’s just winging it and, all things considered, she’s not doing terrible job.

Would a President Palin really be any worse than a President McCain? I don’t see how she possibly could be. On the other, a President Biden probably would be worse than a President Obama. When you look at it this way, it appears that McCain did better job of selecting a running mate than Obama did.
duBois Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
When you look at it this way, it appears that McCain did better job of selecting a running mate than Obama did.

So, say Obama is +10,000,000 and Biden is 9,999,990. That’s a loss of -10 from Obama to Biden.

So, if McCain is -99,999,999 and Sarah Palin is -100,000,000 that’s a loss of -1.

So, McCain did a better job.
gex Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Have you seen the lurching of McCain’s campaign? Preparing and planning aren’t in the equation. So it stands to reason that Sarah’s emphasis on this point makes sense to them.
John Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This is—without caveat—the worst candidate for national elective office I have seen in my lifetime.

Which one?
A Guy in a Cube Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sarah’s Checklist for Preconditions to Meeting with Enemies: Get new shoes and outfit, reservations at a nice hotel, bring the kids along, and…lipstick.
Michael Scott Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Here’s an explanation: She skims when she reads, and she barely listens.

She heard “preconditions” as “preconditioning,” and assumed it meant “getting prepared,” like stretching before you run.

Same thing with her recent gaffe about the Vice President’s role: She skimmed the part of the Constitution that says the VP is “President of the Senate,” and thought that meant she had “presidential” powers there, rather than just a largely ceremonial role, along with the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote.
kid bitzer Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“So that — that’s — that’s some ill-preparedness right there.”

oh jesus. too funny. too accurate.

this ought to be put on her political tombstone.
Ben Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
If she prepares for meetings with foreign leaders as well as she prepares for press interviews, we’ll have world peace in no time
BlueState Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
A 3rd grader could have answered this — honestly, without bluffing.
Ming Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
We are long past the point where any politician or pundit is hurting their own reputation if they do NOT come out and say forthrightly that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. This goes beyond liberal versus conservative, or Republican versus Democrat. For someone like Palin to be this close to the Oval Office is truly uncharted territory for America.
TNeedle Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I really enjoy hearing Pailn giving common sense interpretations to things as she bullshits away. Clearly not soaking up the briefing papers.
TJ Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
DAS is right to be cynical. Palin might be anti-intellectual and incurious, but she is touting the party line. She and her handlers know exactly what they are doing when they make it seem as if Sen. Obama would just jet over to N. Korea and start chatting with Kim. Same with the VP duties. Look at the four times she has publicly answered that question and they are all consistent with each other and, more importantly, with Cheney’s vision of the power of his office. They know exactly what they are doing, the GOP, and that is why Palin is not going to be allowed to be unchaperoned until after the election.
Angry Sam Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Guys, I’d love to hang around and talk about this, but I’ve got to set the preconditions for my staff meeting tomorrow morning.
mainstreet Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a– a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them.

What a weird sentence. Who is the “them” at the end? It sounds like she’s worried Obama or maybe Biden is going to drive/fly to Ahmadinejad’s place late at night after having had too much to drink and start oversharing about all the personal stuff they’re dealing with, or as she says, “the issues that are facing them.”
an aj Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Honestly I can’t make heads or tails of anything this woman says…. I think she may be emitting a ultra high frequency that is damaging my brain… perhaps that is how she plans to win in 2012
Pug Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Some children do not have maps . . .

… like in the Iraq.
leapsecond Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Palin might be anti-intellectual and incurious, but she is touting the party line.

Palin is NOT anti-intellectual. She IS an intellectual…

Or so she says…
cd Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Pardon the frankness, but Palin is SO FUCKING DUMB!
rufustfyrfly Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
You’re giving her way too much credit. She doesn’t just do this on foreign policy, she does this on domestic issues, as well.

Hence her endorsement of a federal right to privacy on national television, despite her stated opposition to Roe v. Wade.
Gerald FNord Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Only intellectuals and other faggots care about what “words” “mean”. What’s important is that the right people say them: Sarah Palin is of the Elect, so everything she says is inspired by the Holy Spirit, covered by the Blood of Jesus, and tossed with a sprightly vinaigrette, which make it, when toast, juice, milk, vitamin pills, MREs, LRP bags, and SPACOM are added, part of this complete breakfast.

Less hebrephrenically, I seriously mean this to be seen as yet another case of dumbed-down Calvinism. Sarah Palin is right because she is right; caring about the actual content shows that you don’t get “it”.

Similarly, J.S. McCain and B.H. Obama may support the existence of a progressive income tax, but McCain’s support is practical and Obama’s proof of unregenerate Socialism.
Douglas Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
All you have to do is look at the prior corporate history of members of the supreme courte, FDA, USDA, etc., to understand that the bogus government does what Monsanto, Oil, Pharma and other corporations tell them. There is no difference between Obama and McCain. But Palin was chosen because she is so stupid and addicted to pseudo-power that she will do whatever she is told – if she remembers.

Shame her outfit only cost $150,000 and Cindy McCain’s cost $300,000. I guess that is democracy at work.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Matt: “Obama’s proposal is also Palin’s proposal — to negotiate first in hopes of getting a deal.”

No, that is NOT Obama’s “proposal”. Go read his Web site, Matt, and stop making shit up.

Obama’s “proposal” is to engage in “aggressive diplomacy” and “severe sanctions” – all of which is a total waste of time since Iran can not and will not stop enrichment regardless of any Obama threats. Only a “grand bargain” which accepts Iranian enrichment and provides security guarantees and diplomatic recognition in exchange for the NPT Additional Protocol and cooperation with regard to Hamas, Hizballah and Al Qaeda can possibly produce any reduction in the manufactured “Iran crisis”.

So in the end Obama will be in the exact same position Bush is now in – either give in and allow Iranian enrichment, or start a war – or, more likely, hand it off to the next administration.

And there will BE a next administration since Obama will have demonstrated MASSIVE failures in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in the handling of both the Iran issue and the Palestinian issue.

Iraq, on the other hand, is a done deal. The Iraqis will force the US out one way or the other by 2011. So Obama is not even relevant in that matter, unless he speeds up the process.
stevieod Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 12:55 am
I think that everyone is missing the boat on Palin, she DOES represent mainstream America. How, you say? Since it has been established without a doubt now that being stupid and ignorant is ‘cool’ in America, and being smart and intelligent is out and so very uncool.

I’m glad that I’m not such a style follower and prefer to remain uncool and out. You can literally hear brains turning to mush whenever Palin brays.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 4:59 am
More evidence that Obama is going to end up exactly like Bush on Iran:

Top Obama Adviser Signs on to Roadmap to War with Iran
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=198

If you haven’t seen it already, check out the op-ed by former Sens. Daniel Coats and Charles Robb in the Washington Post today, entitled “Stopping a Nuclear Tehran.” It is the summary of a report issued last month by an organization called The Bipartisan Policy Center (at whose website you can find the full report), and it amounts to a roadmap to war with Iran to which a senior Middle East adviser in the Obama campaign — namely, Dennis Ross — has apparently signed on.

[UPDATE: Make sure you also read in this connection today’s New York Times article by David Sanger, particularly the part about the purported e-mail from Obama that was routed through an unidentified “aide,” who I presume to be Ross. The coincidence of the appearance of this article with the Coats-Robb op-ed suggests an effort to box Obama into a
pre-election position. The Iran part of the story by Sanger, who considers himself a foreign-policy player, as well as a reporter, tracks the report’s narrative quite nicely.]

While Coats and Robb were the co-chairs of the task force that produced the report, “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development,” the main authors appear to have been the Center’s project director, Michael Makovsky, and Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who listed the report as his work on the AEI website earlier this month. Makovsky, of course, is the younger brother of David Makovsky, the former head and currently senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which has acted more or less as a “think tank” for the so-called “Israel Lobby” over the 20-some years since it was created as a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Michael, who reportedly emigrated to Israel in 1989,
served under Doug Feith at the Pentagon where he was part of the team that helped manipulate the intelligence to facilitate the path to war in Iraq. Rubin, of course, also worked in Rumsfeld’s office at the same time.

Now, you would expect a report like this, which is clearly aimed at the transition team of an incoming president, from hard-line neo-cons with a distinctly Likudist bent like Makovsky and Rubin, or, for that matter, task force member Steve Rademaker, the spouse of AEI’s Danielle Pletka, who also worked under John Bolton in the State Department. But what
really drew my attention to the report when I first heard about it two or three weeks ago, was the fact that Dennis Ross, who is a senior foreign-policy to Barack Obama, also signed on to the report as a task-force member. Ross, who previously served as the chief Israel-Palestinian negotiator for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, has been associated with WINEP in various positions since he left public service, although, unlike Makovsky or Rubin, his sympathies have leaned more to Labour than to Likud, at least in the Israeli context.

According to a variety of sources, Ross was the main drafter of Obama’s pander (except on the settlers) to AIPAC’s annual convention here in May and has since raised his hopes for a top post in an Obama administration, possibly even secretary of state. Frankly, I doubt that the latter prospect is realistic, but — and here’s the main point — I have it from several sources close to the campaign that he is more eager
to gain control over the Iran portfolio (possibly special envoy) than to work on the problem that he knows best from his long experience, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If he succeeds in his quest and if this report is any reflection of his views, then the U.S. could very well find itself at war with Iran within a remarkably short period of time.

I leave it to you to read the column or, better, the executive summary of the report. But I would highlight just a few of its major points on which Ross should be closely questioned if Obama should win the election and considers Ross for any post that would have anything to do with Iran policy:

– A strategy of deterrence, if Iran became a “nuclear-capable” state, would not necessarily work because of the “Islamic Republic’s extremist ideology.”

— No agreement can be reached that would permit Iran to enrich uranium on its own territory under any circumstances, including even under the strictest international inspections regime.

— A “grand bargain” with Iran cannot be worked out in the time that remains before Iran builds a stockpile of 20 kgs of highly enriched uranium 6 kgs of plutonium which would make it technically “nuclear weapons-capable” and which thus must be unacceptable to the U.S.

— The U.S. should be willing to suspend all bilateral nuclear co-operation with Russia in order to pressure it to cooperate on Iran; that is, lending Washington full diplomatic support and refusing to provide additional assistance to Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs or to sell it advanced conventional-weapons systems.

— The U.S. should maintain a constant dialogue with Israel because “…(o)nly if Israeli policymakers believe that U.S. and European policymakers will ensure that the Islamic Republic does not gain nuclear weapons will the Israelis be unlikely to strike Iran independently.” In other words, unless the U.S. is prepared to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel will likely do so without seeking a green light from Washington.

— If the next administration agrees to enter into direct talks with Iran without insisting on its suspension of enrichment, it must set a pre-determined deadline for compliance with its demands, after which it should be prepared to enforce a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports, followed, if Iran still does not agree, by a blockade of its oil exports. If that does not have the desired effect or if Iran retaliated in some way, the U.S. should be prepared to launch a military strike that would “have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.” Such an attack would be followed immediately by “providing food and medical assistance within Iran…” [!!!]

— To convey his seriousness both to Iran and to the international community, the new president should begin building up the U.S. military presence in the region “the first day (he) enters office…” Specifically this would involve “pre-positioning additional U.S. and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers,
emplacing other war material in the region, including additional missile defense batteries, upgrading both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expanding strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia [!!!] in order to maintain operational pressure from all directions.” The report goes on to note that “the presence of
U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan offers distinct advantages in any possible confrontation with Iran. The United States can bring in troops and material to the region under the cover of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, thus maintaining a degree of strategic and tactical surprise.” [Emphasis added in light of recent concerns raised in Iraq about the Status of Forces Agreement.]

In other words, if Tehran is not eventually prepared to permanently abandon its enrichment of uranium on its own soil — a position that is certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio — then war becomes inevitable, and all intermediate steps, even including direct talks if the new president chooses to pursue them, will amount to going through the motions (presumably to gather international support for when push comes to shove). While I would certainly not be surprised if such an approach were adopted by a McCain administration, what is a top Obama adviser doing signing on to it?
doesn't matter Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
This is also silly (even if “Hack”’s fulminations above had any connection to reality:

>It is so naive and so dangerous

Dangerous? Dangerous??!!?? Looky, we still got the (tested) nukes, we still have the 750 billion dollar military (how many times again is that Iran’s GDP??).

If Obama showed up to a meeting with NKorea or Iran *and* winged it (or McCain, as that seems much more his MO than the detail-oriented Obama) then it would be a waste of time for sure.

But not dangerous. WTF do they think these piddling countries are going to do? The problem with Iraq is that (thank god) America still is not the type of nation that can stomach exterminating an entire country – because if we were we could turn Iraq to glass in a week or so.

Stupid Internet Analogy: If you bring a Rottweiler home, find it’s one of the unfortunately aggressive strains, you have to assert your Alpha status and damn quick or somebody will get seriously hurt. If you have the same situation but it’s a Yorkie, you won’t lose any sleep.

Iran is a Yorkie. Nobody serious has been afraid of Persia since Alexander saw the backside of Darius’ chariot.
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:15 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Incredible site! viagra