There is something inherently conservative in George W. Bush's skepticism of the value of reasoning with the unreasonable. Bush told the Israeli Knesset: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." This may be my favorite line of his presidency. It's not that I oppose talks between the United States and any country, but I just think one of the delusions of modern liberalism is the idea that any conflict can be solved merely by talking. Parties have conflicting interests. Deception leads to a false sense of security among the deceived. And reasoning with the unreasonable is itself a form of unreason. With regard to terrorists, action not words.

Seems like this quote is a direct slam at Barack Hussein Obama who has said he would sit down and negotiate with Achmed Imanutjob in Iran. McCain may be distancing himself from Bush, but he could learn a thing or three from Bush's speech today.

How's about SENATOR Obama having to recall one of his representatives when it came out that he would be sitting down and talking with Hamas.

So Mr. Bush’s point is, having the lines of communication open is a waste of time.
Even if there are irreconcilable differences, talking with our enemies is a bad thing?
What if there had been no communication with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis, might not there have been WWIII. I guess not talking with the enemy is a conservative thing

We talked to North Korea during the Clinton presidency and came away with the understanding that they would jettison their nuclear-weapons program and that we would build them nuclear-power plants. We lived up to our end of the bargain. They never had any intention of living up to theirs. Yes, sometimes it is counterproductive to talk. This is particularly true when the people you are talking to are dishonest and unreasonable, attributes that certainly apply to the leader of North Korea.

Agreed talking will not solve all problems but it certainly is more productive then not talking.
We bought time in North Korea and might have bought more if Bush had not labeled them part of the axis of evil underminding any pretense of cooperation.

Who has ever suggested "talking" or "negotiating" with terrorists? Talking to the leaders of a nation (nutty or not) is not the same as talking to Bin Laden. What Bush says here has no coherent meaning, serioualy who would "talk" to a terrorist?

The political point is like what Jason reveals above, if you call someone a "terrorist" or "radical" even if they are an actual elected leader of a country of strategic value or international significance then suddenly yahoo idsologues like Bush can dismiss anything less than a totally belligerent attitude towards them.

I disagree Dan, Bush is being a radical (neocon) ideologue here and not a conservative b/c he really isn't talking about the futility of "talking" or "negotiating" with the "irrational." He can't be talking about that b/c no one would disagree with that.

President Bush is correct that reasoning with fanatical Islamic hard liners is not a realistic possibility. But I do not believe it follows from that that the war on terror, as currently being pursued (ie The War in Iraq and our recent maneuvers with Iran) is the best course. It seems, if anything, to give more credence to the claims of those hardliners in the Muslim world that the west intends to conquer and subjugate Islam, and religious duty demands a righteous Jihad.

So I am bored and looked at this quote again and maybe it is just my strong dislike for Bush and the neocons but now I really don't like what he said. The reason is that a realist foreign policy recognizes that "negotiating" is not the same as "making a persuasive argument" so if someone argues that we should have diplomatic relations with Iran (for example) and thus enter "negotiations" there is never a presumption that persuasion that they are wrong on something is at stake. This means Bush is basically saying he is right and anyone who disagrees with me is a "terrorist" or a "radical" and can f-off. No such thing as realist compromises to dampen down tensions or resolve disagreements. This is rank ideology imo.

Dan is right again. The Progressive bias for "communicating" is wrongheaded. The Hegelian roots of Progressivism lead them to believe they can create a synthesis from any conflict. Bush’s line implies the conservative (and “traditional liberal”) belief that reasoning from principles and not synthesizing from assertions is the requirement of productive discourse.

Communication with those who do not share your values always has an element of danger. They may discover things about your values and how you defend them that they can effectively use against you. Would you allow the other football team to know what part of the field you will be especially defending? Well, the Steelers of the 70's kind of did that. But the Patriots of recent years have proven to their opponents that it almost always is a bad idea.

That is the real "realist" view. It is reported that John Kennedy traced the cause of the Cuban missile crisis to his meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna because he thought Khrushchev incorrectly perceived a weakness in Kennedy's resolve.

"Moderate" Progressives are the most wrongheaded about this because they believe that the best course is the middle course between different value systems. But this strategy empowers the radicals because the crazier one is, the faster that kind of moderate will move to your position.

BHO and his leftist allies find people like Jeremiah Wright (temporarily) useful because such people help move those moderates to the left faster.

One must leave "backdoor" communication channels open to allow adversaries to communicate their needs and to explore the possibilities of shared interest. But official communications with those dedicated to attacking the things you value are often more dangerous than helpful.

Dan I read your article at FrontPage Magazine and was impressed by your command of the subject.

Bush was obviously referring to Obama when he spoke at the Knesset, but he used the pronoun "some" instead of calling him out by name. Originally I thought Obama committed a STUPID rookie error by screaming so loud in protest, but it seems that he benefits by making Bush the issue, no matter how idiotic it makes him look!
I've seen your books at the store, now I'll have to buy one. Thanks Dan

Morgan

Hey, the only thing Bush did was to talk about appeasement. And guess what? An appeaser stood up and responded.

asdf it struck me as strange too! I marveled at how ham-handed and STUPID his reaction seemed. Attacking/fighting Bush is politically good for him.

I don't know, perhaps the "We so much smarter'n Bush" crowd has a point here. After all, Reagan talked to Gorbachev. Worked out pretty well, too.

Of course, it helps to remember that Reagan just had a slew of big new nuclear missiles installed in Western Europe. Star Wars, B-1's, new Aircraft Carrier battle groups, everything pointed right at Gorby's Dacha. And at the decrepit Soviet economy. Helps focus the mind, eh?

Senator Obama gives the impression that two stanzas of Kumbaya constitute his weapon of choice.

Whenever negotiations are held, our side needs two things: a coherent position protecting our vital interests, and the cajones to back it up if the other side gets too slippery.

Senator Obama seems a decent fellow. Too decent. He'll come back from his summit in Teheran with M. Ahmadinejad's boot prints all over his nice new suit.

President Bush doesn't seem to understand that diplomacy is not a debate where you try to score points against your opponent. Diplomacy involves an attempt to resolve a conflict that might otherwise escalate into a war. It is very reasonable to practice diplomacy with all sorts of nasty characters because, as Chruchill said, "far better to jaw-jaw than war-war."

In regards to the Sunnis our policy in Iraq has been to try to buy their support. We currently pay each Sunni combatant, now called the "Sons of Iraq," $300.00 a month and provide logistical and armaments to the Sunni leaders in Baghdad. This is one of the reasons the "surge" has been a success -- we are buying their quiescence.

Isn't it nice to know that former Sunni insurgents who are responsible for killing Americans are now supported by our tax dollars?