If the poll question was worded the way the response was, it was loaded and misleading. Of course well over half think talks should take place only after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons. But Iran stopped developing weapons in 2003, as far as anyone knows.

The poll might as well have asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

ExiledIndependent…I agree that public opinion can result is horrible, horrible outcomes. Take 2004 for example.

As I thought, this public opinion poll is not sufficient to tell the whole story. For the most part, Americans favor talks with Iran only if they halt their nuclear program first.

Forty-five percent (45%) of likely voters agree with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that it’s a good idea for the U.S. president to meet directly with the leader of Iran, but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons

And now, Barack seems to be backtracking a bit on Iran himself:

“[A]s president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear.”

I thought talks without preconditions itself advanced the interest of the United states. Recently, Ahmadinajad said he is ready to talk to the U.S., so whats the hangup again? Remember, Obama said that the lack of talking was the reason why they are misbehaving in the first place:

“And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah.”

The question should be, what are you willing to give up? Would you allow Iran to complete its nuclear program in order to avoid military intervention? Are you willing to allow rouge regimes to continue to obfuscate international regulations set up to maintain global security? Is that diplomacy; simply to take no action if Iran keeps it up?

Otherwise, what ransom should we pay to the terrorist supporting apocalyptic religious fanatic regime that is manufacturing nuclear weapons and vows to wipe Israel off the map? What concessions are we willing to negotiate away in order for promises and gentlemens’ agreements that they will peacefully abandon everything they have stood for over the past 30 years?

Democrats have for a long time been afraid of being portrayed as weak on national security and have essentially conceded the argument to Republicans. Obama has taken an arguably liberal position related to national security and defended it to the American people, making a case for why it is in the country’s best interest. No Democrat has done that in a long time, and that’s why public opinion on these issues has favored Republicans.