Dumb question: What if Democrats sent someone out to talk to Iran?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I know this is probably not a wise thing to do, but I'm tossing it out there as a brainstorming idea one way or another, and as part of a larger idea, which I'll explain below:

What if Democrats sent out a two-man team to meet with Iranian leaders about their alleged nuclear weapons program? Say we sent Kerry and Clark or two other guys with foreign affairs experience out to discuss a disarmament agreement with Iran without Republicans? And what if they succeeded?

Personally, I know it's not going to happen, and it's probably not a good idea. We'd risk being painted as jumping into bed with the enemy and such, and quite frankly, it's probably not worth the risk while the GOP is busy slitting their own throats. Still, I like the idea of Democrats working unilaterally on the problems of our country, even if we don't currently have the force of power behind it.

By way of example, what if we held a world energy summit of our own, where we invited world leaders and the leading scientists in the world community to discuss the current energy crisis and devise a global plan to move towards conservation and alternative fuel sources? I see something like that serving two purposes: first, we actually get working on reversing the horrible policy of the last 12 years under Republicans, and secondly, we show people not only do we have a plan, but we also have the leadership to get it done, and get it done quickly.

Just tossing the idea out there - let me know what you think.

[havocmom]

1. What would be the point? The truth didn't stop the invasion of Iraq

I am wondering if it might not be better for a lot of foreign leaders to talk to the American people AND THE CONGRESS about the fact that the junta is a threat to global peace and the world is getting tired of being nice about it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It's not an issue of truth here.

Iran is claiming that they're building nukes - so unless they're lying, it's apples-and-oranges to compare it to Iraq.

The point is to actually have some diplomacy. The Bush administration refuses to enter face to face discussions with the Iranian government. If we did, and succeeded in securing a non-proliferation agreement, that would not only help avert a war, but it would usurp power from Bush and prove that we are leaders.

[havocmom]

12. Um, the UN inspectors said no WMD in Iraq and the junta invaded

They are not interested in diplomacy any more than they are interested in truth. They will do what they plan to do unless the Congress or the world actually stops them.

The only way to take the power away from the people using bush as a front is to have the US Congress cut the finances. Problem is, the junta CAN and probably WILL commit troops or drop bombs to force a war where they want to. If Congress doesn't write the checks, the junta goes before the court of public approval and accuses the Congress of deserting the troops on a battlefield.

So, Congress is the only thing that can stop them, but they are blackmailing Congress. Solution: Enough VERY VISIBLE public pressure to assure Congress that THEY are responsible to OUR wishes and if they do not stop the junta's war machine, they will be replaced. THEN we assure honest elections and make damn sure we follow through with OUR RESPONSIBILITIES of oversight.

Roses to worthy people are wonderful, but support for honest candidates with EVERY DIME and spare moment you have is better.

There is no way in hell any delegation talking it over with Iran is gonna change the mind of the Cheney/Rumsfeld War Profiteering Machine. In a perfect world, honest dialog would solve most problems. This is not that world.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. If we want a return to legitimate governance and sane policy, we have to pay attention and make sure our wishes are carried out by OUR representatives..

[lwcon]

3. Is Jane Fonda available?

But seriously, what about Jimmy Carter?

Not only could he potentially do it, given the respect he's earned as America's peacemaking statesman, the symmetry of it would be priceless.

In any case, kudos for your out-of-the-box suggestion.

___


Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Radio_Guy]

11. Jimmy Carter would be an excellent choice

He has become an incredible statesmen. He should go on his own and help iron out the problems our pResident is making.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Normally, I say there are no dumb questions

-normally.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Well thanks for anything amounting to substantive criticism.

Would you mind elaborating at all?

[BOSSHOG]

7. I might suggest

a retired statesman, Gary Hart, Carter who could be joined by a retired Republican statesmen to try to make inroads towards a peaceful resolution. I think we should sit down at the negotiating table and talk till the cows come home. The alternative is only more funerals of our servicemembers being picketed by that wonderful human being fred phelps. The daily destruction of our military will only weaken any attempts we make in the future to sit down with anybody and talk about anything.

[onenote]

6. I understand the frustration beneath the question, but bad idea

Foreign policy historically falls within the realm of the executive branch. For a couple of Democratic senators to head over to Iran to discuss matters unilaterally would be a very bad idea and would backfire badly. The public may not like what chimpy is doing, but instinctively most people feel that, when it comes to foreign affairs, there can only be one official representative. Think of what a horrid precedent it would set the next time there is a Democratic president (hopefully in 2009)-- you'd have publicity seeking members of Congress roaming the world talking to heads of state without the imprimatur of the nation.

We need to demonstrate that we have a plan by discussing it here at home, not by running abroad to attempt to implement it.

Finally, think of what happens if the effort fails (as almost certainly would be the case since there is no way the Iranians would trust the Democrats to deliver on whatever they were offering and that's assuming the Iranians themselves could be trusted -- itself is a major question). Then we look even worse -- meddlers and ineffectual to boot.

onenote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Like I said, I knew it was a stupid question and a bad idea.

The whole thing is just meant as a brainstorming exercise really.

I don't, however, see the downside to the energy summit I gave as an example.

[MrPrax]

8. Hard to Spin...

but a good idea.

'October Surprise'-Iran version from Wikipedia

...It is alleged that then-vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush secretly visited Paris on October 19, 1980, along with several senior U.S. senators (John Tower, John Heinz) and William Casey (then Reagan's campaign chairman and later his CIA director) to meet with representatives of Iran's religious regime to exchange security assurances and arms in exchange for holding the hostages through to the end of the 1980 election campaign. Reports confirming that such a meeting did in fact take place have surfaced from former French, Russian, and Israeli intelligence agents.

The hostages were in fact released at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, supporting these rumors that the Reagan campaign did in fact make a secret hostage deal with the Iranian government. Two separate congressional investigations as well as several investigave journalists looked into the charges, with inconclusive results. Many of the participants in events surrounding these alleged events have died under mysterious circumstances including John Tower (airplane crash), John Heinz (airplane crash, the day before Tower), and William Casey (sudden brain hemorage). A congressional review was conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of John Tower (see Tower Commission)....

Text

[DURHAM D]

10. Thanks for posting - I was reading down the thread with some

amusement while thinking about the October Surprise and laughed out loud when a poster suggested sending President Carter.

Oh the irony.

[karynnj]

13. It would be illegal

Only the executive branch can actually negotiate with foreign governments. What is legal (and part of the job) is that Senators on relevent committees can and do meet with foreign leaders to assist in their oversight role. For example, Kerry in January visited Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Jordan.

This issue actually was addressed when an Indian reporter asked Kerry about the treaty being negotiated. Kerry politely explained that Senators can't negotiate but they are called upon to advice and vote on them.

As far as say energy, the best idea would be if some think tank or foundation had a conference to explore ideas that would have both scientists and politicians. This actually does happen. (CSPAN shortly after the election had a speech that Kerry gave at the Brookings Institute on things energy/environment. (In fact in the introduction, he spoke of how the Kerrys hosted a dinner at their home where experts informally discussed these issues - that both Kerrys are involved in.)

From this to a summit is not that far. They might have to worry about what they call it but there's no logical reason that they couldn't do this. They obviously couldn't promise the US would do anything.

[fujiyama]

14. I think a dialogue

between the governments is absolutely necessary, but a high profile trip would be political suicide.

At best it would be called grandstanding or political posturing, at worst treason.

Reemember what happened to Jim McDermot when he went over to Iraq along some others? He was vilified like crazy, plus it didn't really accomplish anything. Bush still invaded, and he'll attack again, regardless of what others say.