There is all the difference in the world between COMMUNICATING with an adversary such as Iran - as through third parties or other diplomatic channels - and NEGOTIATING with that adversary.
Negotiating implies that the adversary has both legitimacy and legitimate claims. And that there is to be give and take with a result that is somewhere between the positions held by the negotiators.
Tyrants love negotiations with emissaries from the democracies. They understand so very well the weaknesses of democracies and the propensities of elected leaders who seek to mollify their constituents - through a temporary and, often fatal, respite..
"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 . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Although I think it was clear that the Present was making a political point, as long as everyone seems to be nit-picking what Buchanan said, I'll do the same.
No, Mr. President, Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. Buchanan was correct in making this point. Mr. President, you, your father, and many Presidents before have negotiated with terrorists and terrorist supporting countries. Were you just trying to give us the "false comfort of appeasement"? Did all of you think "some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along"?
Negotiating certainly does not imply "that the adversary has both legitimacy and legitimate claims". Prison guards negotiate with rioting prisoners. Police negotiate with hostage takers. Countries negotiate over many things including war and peace. There are no implications of legitimacy or legitimate claims, only an acceptance that the parties can do harm.
Some of you seem to be against any negotiations because either we, as a Country don't seem to be very good at it (just look at our negotiated "free" trade agreements) or that negotiations usually don't work. Both points are valid but not determinative.
Some of you seem quite upset because you have a visceral dislike of Buchanan or an emotional tie to the President. Neither of these lead to valid points in an argument.
I believe the President was flat out wrong in insinuating negotiation is the same as appeasement. I believe he was wrong in using the flaccid "Nazi" comparison when negotiating with Hitler was not the problem, making stupid agreements with him was. Buchanan was correct in pointing out both of President Bush's "mistakes".
I don't have a problem with the President saying what he did as he is a politician making a political point. I don't have any problem with what Buchanan said as he is a political commentator commenting on a political statement. Personally, I am not a huge fan of either one of them.