James Baker: Talking To An Enemy Is Not Appeasement

A clip of former Secretary of State James Baker has been making the rounds recently, as a result of the current 'appeasement' debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. Unfortunately for McCain, Baker agrees with Obama. And even though the interview is from this past October, Baker addresses head-on the issue of appeasement, saying:

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

[WATCH]

Comments

[MrHHusseinMA]

Obama wins! Talks make a difference! Lebanon Signs Peace Deal! Israel & Syria Working On Peace!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8tMKJwBUMs

[jwander1]

When John McCain gets that 3 a.m. phone call, I guess he's just going to hang up.

[rollingdivision]

No one is suggesting not talking to the enemies of the USA, in fact it is to be expected and considered normal for regular discussions to occur at the appropriate diplomatic levels. The USA talks with every country on a regular basis, so nothing will change in this respect. The problem is Obama's policy commitment to conduct 5 separate meetings, without any preconditions, all within the first year of an Obama administration, between Obama and each leader of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela that is the issue. Specifically what will Obama discuss in each of these five separate meetings? How will Obama prepare for five top level meetings in his first year? When will these Obama Cuban, Iranian, North Korean, Syrian and Venezuelan meetings start? Specifically what concessions does Obama believe he will get during each meeting? No one has a problem with diplomacy, it is normal and should continue.

[Abroad]

Although I totally agree with the position fmr Secretary Baker expresses in this clip, which is indeed the position defended by Senator Obama, I must however object to the misleading of the HuffPo titles.

On the politics page the title reads: "James Baker Contradicts McCain: Talking To An Enemy Is Not Appeasement"

The entry's title however is: "James Baker: Talking To An Enemy Is Not Appeasement"

The second is accurate in the sense in simply states James Baker's position. The first however falsely suggests James Backer had spoken out to contradict McCain in the current Obama/McCain riff.

As I said before I share Obama and Baker's opinion, but just taking up a clip and posting it with a misleading title is kid stuff.

How about doing some journalism: get a hold of James Backer and ask him were he stands on the Bush/McCain attitude in light of his past declarations shown in this clip.

[fourex]

Poor John, first Gates, then Baker, and today Israel. Walking in the bloody footprints of the illiterate GW Bush is foolhardy, sir.

[BethStuart]

I noticed in today's news that Israel is conducting negotiations with Syria through Turkish mediators. Does this mean that Bush and McCain will accuse Israel of appeasement?

[devanate]

That's right, just take Bush out of the negotiating loop. He's too incompetent to be of any value in that regard anyway.

[kissmygrits]

Right, like Nazi appeasers? They don't have the balls.

[Rog49Thomas]

Well who are we going to believe some loony leftist like James Baker - a guy with no practical experience in world affairs? Or fine patriots like Brother McCain or President Pan?

Pretty clear what the answer is.

I suppose next you'll be quoting Chuck Hagel to support some far out idea.

BTW look closely at the picture with this article. Brother James isn't wearing a flag lapel pin - which just goes to prove he's not only a leftist but anti-American to boot!

[realtalk]

YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!

[Rog49Thomas]

Next time could you please sit squarely in front of your monitor when posting?

I couldn't tell if you're wearing a flag lapel pin or not..

It's very disconcerting. Not to mention a bit scary.

Luckily I still have my plastic wrap and duct tape.

[Rog49Thomas]

http://www.celebrationfantastic.com/catalog.cfm?caid=625201

Nuff said

[benwha]

OK stop this is too much.

Well Done!

[helonias]

But Jesus said "Love thine enemies"

Are you against him too?

[Rog49Thomas]

I'd point out that in every picture I've seen Jesus was definitely not wearing an American flag lapel pin.

How can you trust this guy then?

He's probably a liberal and highly likely a foreigner. Maybe even an illegal alien!

[Pyrrhus]

Dude, didn't you hear?

According to Fox News- McCain campaign- All mighty Grand Dragon Minister Hagee- "love" was a typo.

It's meant to say "loathe your enemies. And crush them with a 'nukular' weapon."

[Vantunow]

Doesn't your heart feel good when people from the opposite side speak truth and act in a descent way?

Thank you James Baker.

Wish more people on the other side had your courage, honesty and descency.

[circusfifthfloor]

I believe scripture reads peacemaker, not peacelover. OK? How can these guys and their stooges at fox get it wrong on everything all the time? Amazing....CFF.

[helonias]

It was "Blessed are the cheese makers"

Didn't you ever see Life Of Brian

[don]

what's it to ya, big nose?

[FlowerGirl]

It seems that Baker wants to make up for the help he gave the Bush-Cheney criminals in getting into the White House.

[ajax2]

Poor John McCain all his friends are either talking to the enemy (see Bush in Saudi Arabia) or saying it's OK (Baker). Even the younger McCain disagrees with him.

[RoseBlue]

Look at the pictures! These old white farts need to move aside. They're dangerous. They're out of touch. Disclosure: I am a white woman, late 40s, highly educated, who happens to feel Obama speaks to the times. HOWEVER... I must say, I find it ridiculous that there is so much hand-wringing in the current democratic contest. We have TWO amazing nominees who are energizing this party & country in ways that were unimaginable two years ago.

[clint111]

Read this excellent analysis on Hillary's speech:

http://mrpredictor.wordpress.com/

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Read it. Feh.

[qdog112]

In Republican Fantasy Land Diplomacy, America holds 100% of the chips 100% of the time. Therefore it follows that ANY discussion would NECESSARILY mean giving away a part of the chips.

In their minds the opposition never has anything of value to offer, so there's no reason to talk. Ever notice the game they play in terms of who "BLINKS FIRST" in negotiations.

COMPLETE and UTTER JUVENILE BS.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

To McCain, talking with any foe will always remind him of his conversations with his personal enemy, his North Viet Namese captors. He talked. He was appeasing them. Had he been tortured more, he would have cooperated more.

Sunni, Shiite... Viet Cong. McSame difference.

The man is a rage-aholic with PTSD who calls his own WIFE the c-word in front of witnesses. He is 1.5 years older than Reagan at the same point. His courage has been supplanted by his snarl. His integrity has been supplanted by his ambition.

He needs to be shown the door.

[focher]

This whole issue gets bogged down because two different things are being mixed together. First, if you want to discuss Obama's position on negotiation - and the side issue of diplomatic protocol and who would be sitting at the table - then focus on that point - . But the main point of contention seems to be about the fundamental policy about whether to negotiate. It just seems outright ridiculous to reject the practice of dialogue with an enemy. Chamberlain's failure at Munich was not attending, it was his signing away parts of a country to Germany. If he had looked across the table and definitively said "if you send your troops across the German border into any other country, we will declare war on you" most likely Hitler would have blinked.

It really is such a silly proposition that we shouldn't negotiate with our enemies, as not a single President (even this one) has taken that firm policy approach. Explain to me why we have US negotiators sitting at a table with North Korea or Libya? Or explain how we sat with the Soviet Union.

[argeec]

Chamberlain was just facing reality. The Germans already had the Sudetenland and Britain had no capability of fighting on the continent.

[Agnim]

Reagan The Republican Appeaser!

Reagan Republican not only talked with the Iranians:

REPUBLICANS ARE ACTUALLY THE APPEASERS!

REAGAN TRADED ARMS TO THE IRANIANS FOR HOSTAGES!

That is what appeasing an enemy means: giving him something to pacify him.

And the Reagan Republicans did just that with the Iranians!

[don]

Sadam too after he attacked the Stark, and Hezbolah after they bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

[kevenseven]

Just how many "enemies" do we have? How many of them are we shooting at?

Do we have lots of adversaries and a few enemies?

Hugo Chavez. Is he an "enemy" or an adversary?

Seems to me it is important to make the distinction. Of course, when the only way to get elected is by hyping fear and hatred, then the more enemies the US has, the better.

Is Iran an "enemy'", or an adversary? I think it is an adversary, even if that is uncomfortable for Israel.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Israel and Iran were once allies against Iraq.

As they say in the ME, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It's the regime, not the people.

[jeplanet]

Well said.
and cool handle
:)

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

thx

[hyderows]

"And even though the interview is from this past October, Baker addresses head-on the issue of appeasement, ..."

Again, the interview is from 2006. Not this past October.

And once again, I bet Baker wouldn't see the parallel between what he said 1 1/2 years ago and what Obama wants to do. I hope someone asks Baker.

[elektrik]

why would Baker think any differently today than 1.5 yrs ago? Look at his example, Syria! The mothership of terrorism in his day. Appeasement is giving things up. Talking is not giving up anything, much to the amazement of today's GOP.

[jeplanet]

That's what makes it so great. In a moment of unscripted honesty, he made Obama's point to the republicans.
And on FOX NEWS, no less.
he he he he he he

[DrDemon]

Obama is the best thing that could happen to our country. The worlds needs him too!

O in 08' A New Class of Presidency!

[Gayrove]

I hope that Senator Obama reads that and considers it when he speaks about not meeting with Hamas, or iran.

[marleysghost]

All throughout history people have negotiated with enemies. This is what ends warfare and promotes community. Now that the Republican smear machine has corrupted even the word diplomacy and diplomatic negotiations the only thing left is to shoot and then claim helplessness because once begun the conflict must continue.

A man kills both his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court claiming he an orphan. Republicanspeek!

[jeplanet]

If you had a problem with your neighbor; wouldn't you at least try to talk it out first and tell them your concerns? Or would you just give them the silent treatment or throw rocks through their window?
Talking doesn't mean you go over to their house with a casserole and offer to clean their pool; it's just talking out a problem to try to reach a peaceful conclusion.
There's a big difference between communication and appeasement !
Something the republicans refuse to acknowledge.