The Obama administration's dealings with North Korea and Iran in recent days have sparked anger across the blogosphere. Is Obama's approach to these rogue states intelligent, or does he need to stop placating them?
Gibbs's Statement Is "Unforgivable," says Andrew Sullivan. "Ahmadinejad may be the president of Iran but no administration official should ever call him elected. He wasn't. He was selected."
Obama Lends Legitimacy to Ahmadinejad, says Michael Rubin at the National Review. "Engagement is one thing," he writes. But Obama "seems intent on playing poker with Iran with an open hand."
Don't Give Rogue Regimes Respect, say Jamie M. Fly and Daniel Halper in Politico. "United States policy toward North Korea in recent decades emphasized satisfying the regime in Pyongyang's desire for legitimacy and respect, in the hope that this would lead to concessions on the nuclear issue. This approach has failed."
- "It's Worse Than Jimmy Carter," writes Michael Leeden at the National Review. "It's all appeasement, all the time, from South America to Central Europe, from the Middle East to South Asia. And it's a guarantee of greater violence, bigger crises, and more American dead."
"Appeaser" Is a Pretty Strong Word, writes Adam Serwer at The American Prospect. Serwer says it's "a good thing" that Gibbs retracted his statement, but he isn't comfortable with the Nazi references. "At the same time, Gibbs' flub is not equivalent to Neville Chamberlain acquiescing to Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland."
This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.