Joe Lieberman is right about Barack Obama.

Well, he's right that Obama has proposed talking with nations we don't get along with so well. But that doesn't mean those talks are unconditional. He's said that substantive issues must be on the table to make talks happen.

Every conflict ends in some form of negotiations. One day we will sit down with Al-Qaeda to formulate some type of peace agreement or surrender.

Foreign Policy would be a good tag for this claim.

Well done Urgent.

"Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet."

I see "without preconditions" there Rorek.

Uh, that's what Lieberman said.

From Barack Obama's page on foreign policy:

# The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

# Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Well, if you like election propaganda that is solely up to you. I personally prefer a non-biased approach at the truth and that site is anything but non-biased. That's all!

I don't even like Obama, and I think Lieberman is full of it. Meetings and discussions should be the first option on the table at all times, and refusing to have them is to invite an escalation of the situation. You don't hold talking out as the reward to backing down; you have to talk someone into backing down.

Beside that, we really don't have much option at this point. Our military is stretched to breaking, as is our budget. Talk is cheap, and it may be the one thing that prevents our having to back down first.

This is a good claim. I don't agree with Lieberman, but I think he articulates his point of view well. I think the problem with Lieberman's view is that he sees only the good side of American foreign policy, and is ignoring the ugly stuff that we like to forget:

The assasination of Patrice Lumumba (Ultimately, it was the Belgians who succeeded in getting him assassinated, but not because the CIA didn't try.)

Mohammed Mosaddeq Removed as prime minister of Iran with the help of the CIA (replaced with the Shah) for attempting to nationalize the (very lucrative) Iranian oil industry, which was at that time controlled by the British, our allies.

Bay of Pigs invasion 1511 Cuban exiles are deposited on the beaches of Cuba and left to die when Kennedy withdraws military support at the last moment so that it can appear that the United States wasn't involved.

The Mujahideen got much of their backing (arms, money) from the United States and others in their fight with the Soviet Union. This conflict is where Bin Laden got his start in managing militant organizations.

U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war We provided substantial aid to Iraq in their war with Iran.

These are just some examples, not an exhaustive list. While it's nice to think that the United States is always promoting freedom and democracy, we also have historically acted out of short-sighted self interest, and that has cost us (and others) dearly in the long run.

If we really want to promote freedom and democracy, we're going to have to do things differently than we have in the past. That doesn't necessarily mean being completely pacifist and non-interventionist, but we really need to examine our motivations and long term consequences before engaging in conflict, either openly or in secret.

There was an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times the other day on this subject. Obama comes out pretty poorly, clearly using a fallacious argument from authority. Of course fallacious arguments are all over the place in politics. But hopefully Obama will explain how he hopes to make the negotiations work for us.