“I voted against preconditions before I voted for them. In between, I got my rookie ass handed to me.”
Barack Obama has done a complete reversal on his signature foreign policy issue – talking to America’s enemies without preconditions. This policy was designed to provide a sharp contrast with President Bush’s “Cowboy Diplomacy.” Senator Obama’s proposal was so radical, even Hillary Clinton didn’t buy into it. From Reuters.
U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is distancing himself from expectations he would meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and taking a more cautious stand on talking to other U.S. adversaries.
With criticism from Republicans turning harsher as Obama moves closer to winning the Democratic nomination battle against rival Hillary Clinton, the Illinois senator has shifted — but not abandoned — his position.
Shifted is a gold-plated political weasel word.
Here is his original, unequivocal, unshifted statement.
In a CNN presidential candidates debate in July 2007, Obama was asked if he would be willing “without precondition” to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
“I would,” Obama said. “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”
Now, the new position.
Obama later said that though he would not set preconditions on meetings, there would be careful preparations.
~~~But as Republicans have painted him as someone who would be willing to “cozy up” to foes like Ahmadinejad, Cuban leader Raul Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Obama and his advisers have emphasized preparation would precede any meeting with leaders of adversarial countries.
So he will have preceding preparations but not preconditions. I guess that would include flight arrangements, dinner menus, and tourist stops. But nothing substantive from a policy standpoint would be hammered out before the presidents would meet. Then again . . .
Preparations, by contrast, mean making sure that meetings begin “with low-level diplomatic engagement and that there’s a clear agenda so that any meetings would be constructive.” He also stressed a meeting doesn’t guarantee concessions.
Smells like freshly baked preconditions to me.
Oh, but wait, turns out he won’t meet with Ahmadinejad after all, regardless of the preconditions.
Obama said on Monday he would not guarantee a meeting with Ahmadinejad, since Iran is holding a presidential election in 2009.
“There’s no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He’s not the most powerful person in Iran,” Obama told reporters.
And he won’t meet Castro during the first year either.
In a speech on Latin America last week, Obama said he would be willing to talk to Castro’s communist government but “at a time and place of my choosing” and “only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States.”
The McCain campaign accuses Obama of backtracking and says that shows he lacks judgment on foreign policy matters.
No kidding.
Obama has just said he would not meet these thugs and dictators within the first year of his administration. He also said there would be a pre-set, clear agenda and no guarantee of concessions. That is not a “shift.” That is abandoning the policy.
The scary part is he folded on such an important policy matter when he was criticized by Americans. Imagine how he’ll do with the dictators.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
Obama is a Marxist, sorry I meant Collectivist, his pappy was a Marxist, if you can figure out the difference. He knows nothing about America, it’s traditions, it’s culture the only thing he knows is what Rev Wright, Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx and all his liberal brain dead professors fed him. A true affirmative action college graduate if there ever was one. Spent more time on how to give a speech and voice inflections than he ever did on content and substance — Hence his gaffe machine syndrome. Getting elected is his only goal, and who is behind him, the puppet master? I bet on Soros.
Obama is one giant empty suit with big ears that all the Democrat Marxist in Congress think they can fill him up with all their Marxist ideas. Starting with the McCain-Lieberman Climate change BS …
Democrats promised to end the war if given control of Congress in 2006. That very night Howard Dean revealed they never planned to do so. Recently, Congressional Democrats have flat out admitted that they never even really intedended to end it. Now, the very same Democratic voters who cling to the “BUSH LIED” idea, are the very same Democratic voters who do not hold their party to account for equal/greater misleading from their party leaders, their elected officials w a “D” next to their name, and who with wide eyes and ear-to-ear grins believe that President Obama can just “talk” to Iran and everything will be fine. Iran will stop being the biggest sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world, they’ll stop building nuclear bomb factories, and they’ll paint over that “DEATH TO AMERICA” slogan off the side of the abandoned US embassy in Tehran because love prevails.
While both parties surely and clearly have their spinmeisters, I have to wonder when other Democratic party voters will stop rolling with glee over everything and anything that makes them smile because it feeds a sense of gotcha politics, and instead start realizing that the party is making promises it never intends to keep-at least, not unless they’re given unchecked power, and I’m pretty sure the founding fathers frowned upon that sorta thing. We should all.
Obama’s not gonna magically end the war in Iraq, or magically fix things w Iran and make them start acting in our interest (or counter to our interests). Nope. He’ll tell you that he will, pretend that he can, and when he takes office he’ll make excuses as to why he’s taking the exact same measures that President Bush has done already, and would be doing if he were elected. The war in Iraq will continue, continue to go well, and continue to decrease in size. Iran will still be killing Americans, still be building their nuclear bomb factories, and will still have rallies w millions of people chanting, “DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!!”
Quite honestly, I’m afraid the only way to get that to stop is to have similar rallies here in the US with millions chanting, “DEATH TO IRAN!” But that’s not gonna happen. There will be no credible threat of military force and national conviction demonstrated towards Iran-Democrats by and large don’t have the stomach for war even when attacked. New York could disappear in a mushroom cloud hours after the innauguration of President Obama, and even if the the Obama Administration played an NSA recording of Ahmadinejad congratulating the terrorists on the phone and admitting Iran was behind it, Democrats would still march in protest demanding there be “talks” w Iran rather than confronting those Armageddon-seeking-suicidal-death-cult leaders. If it happens 9 months into an Obama administration, Democrats will blame Bush, ignore the Obama administration’s parallel and consistent actions, and be blind to the real causes of American wars in the 21st Century:
-lack of deterrence brought about by a peace-at-any-cost culture that is willing to submit to anything despite having never had to submit to anything
-completely unacceptable intelligence agencies that do not live up to their expectations or the quality that the American people deserve (see also UBL and anthrax killers still at large)
-seven years of war undermined by counter-propaganda rather than supportive reporting of success, accurate threat reporting, and political bias from both ends of the spectrum
If Democratic voters were responsible and true to what they claim they believe in, then why are they going to vote AGAIN for members of Congress who promised to end the war, but didn’t? Why do they believe President Obama will “talk” w Iranian leaders when he won’t even talk to American military leaders to base his policy claims on what’s really happening rather than what he’s told is happening by the Huffington Post, KOSsacks, MoveOn, or MSNBC hacks?
Coffee’s good this morning. Time for a refill
Doesn’t even seem like a shift to me, just an explanation of how his vision of aggressive diplomacy works. He has always said there would be preparations, which are different than preconditions. He never said that he would meet without having a clear pupose. It was never about meeting to just have tea and compare golf scores, you guys injected that idea. And of course it will be at a time of his chosing, being President is a busy job….
Oh Fitfit…it doesn’t matter if President Obama meets with A, B, or C in Iran, if he gets Iran to meet w pre-conditions (something the Bush Admin already tried, but was turned down by Iran), or how they meet, where, or if it happens when President Obama ‘feels like it’.
No “talks” are going to convince Iran to:
-stop killing Americans in Iraq
-prove to the UN that their nuclear bomb factories are for peaceful power (psssst, there’s no no power grid)
-or to stop calling for the destruction of Israel.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, tell me how talks can do all that?
Offer Iran something if they do all that? If so, then that’s appeasement.
Threaten Iran? Yeah, there are military options other than invasion, but President Obama’s base, party, world opinion, and press corps won’t back that kinda thing; ie there is no credible threat of national conviction supporting military action
So, how’re “talks” w Iran gonna work? Some say, “Well, ya gotta try at least.” Problem with that is that it’s been tried. The Iranians won’t accept American preconditions, deny they’re nuclear bomb factories even exist in many cases, and will never stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Many nations have tried to “talk” to Iran. The UN has tried for decades now. It ain’t workin.’
How will President Obama be the exception, and what historical evidence is there that he can be the exception?
Dare to imagine the unthinkable: that you’re being misled by a politician
It has been the stated policy of the United States government since April 7, 1980 NOT to talk to the Iranians. I am actually extremely skeptical any good would come from talks, but even more skeptical that anything bad will. I know that doing nothing achieves nothing.
SecState Rice has already offered to have talks w Iran w preconditions. They refused. As I said, others have tried-MANY others, and nothing came of it;
-Iran is still killing Americans in Iraq
-Iran still refuses to work with the IAEA re its nuclear program
-Iran is still calling for the destruction of Israel
Why would Pres Obama have a better chance at getting Iran to talk and to comply w those three; better than the 2 British governments, 3 German governments, 2 UN Secretaries, 3 IAEA directors, the Arab League, and 4 American administrations?
Please America we need to talk about something. A whole, whole, huge, huge, core of debate, about Obama, that is entirely kept silent by the Mainstream Media.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/kenyas_killing_fields/index.html
Check this out, America and the bloggers need to air this connection out. If true we are dealing with the most dishonest Black Hypocrite America has ever been indulged with. Obama clearly has a background of serious Islamic connections that are totally against the grain of the basic concepts Obama is parading around campaigning with. It all is disgusting, vile, and pure poison to America if Obama is nominated as president.
I have totally changed my mind about Obama; he is not getting my vote. If this stuff is even half true it shows how Mainstream Media is saving the best for last to eliminate Hillary from the Nomination and help McCain in the last months of the general election. They knew Obama is a jerk all along.
What were Rice’s preconditions?
She said they’d have to suspend enrichment activities. Which they’ve done on occasion before talks w the Brits and the UN. They refused. Instead, they boasted about firing up 3000 reactors a few weeks later. Back in late 05 (Oct Nov or Dec I believe) El Baradei told Newsweek that once those 3000 were up and running, Iran could have a bomb in months. My guess is they already have many.