Time: Obama Never said Talk to Amandinejad - Page 3

Kanadesaga · 05-24-2008, 01:34 PM

I can't believe people are so fucking stupid. Why not debate the word "is" again? Jesus fucking christ. He said he would meet without preconditions. What is so fucking hard to understand? an example. We want Iran not to develop a nuclear bomb. the retard's idea of negotiating, "Get rid of your nuclear program and we'll talk" real fucking brillant that. Obama's idea is talk with them to get rid of the program. I know it's a subtle difference, but see if you can't figure it out.

julia · 05-24-2008, 01:39 PM

That's why people are so easily duped by talking points-they don't have to think they out.

julia · 05-24-2008, 01:43 PM

Then to defend a strawman argument that the McCain campaign, Novak and Krauth are pimping...?

Puh-lease.

Kanadesaga · 05-24-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julia

That's why people are so easily duped by talking points-they don't have to think they out.

My point is I don't care if he did say he'd meet with anyone. Talking is always better than killing. I know a lot of these little-dicked assholes, like cheney and the retard don't think so, but that is a reality. So if you support killing over talking, you're an asshole.

OldManOnFire · 05-24-2008, 02:01 PM

Obama has publicly stated that he will talk directly with any of them.

This means that Obama will talk directly with al Qaeda, he will talk directly with the Taliban, he will talk directly to the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, he will talk directly with Kim Il-sung, and his first meeting will probably be with Osama bin Laden!

Yeah right...gimme a fricken break...

It was a stupid thing for Obama to say, besides, the US always has dialogue in some form or fashion, probably with every nation in the world. And this dialogue takes place at the levels which make most sense for the moment depending on topic or issue. When things at lower levels get too robust, they simply move the issue up to the next group until it eventually reaches the top levels.

An effective CEO hires great people to work with them, and these people create effective departments to deal with their respective responsibilities, and this is the most efficient process. If the CEO believes they should be the front person on everything, then what is the purpose of the thousands of diplomats around the world??

Obama is dead wrong on this one...

cheapseats · 05-24-2008, 02:19 PM

I remembered an unambiguous declaration that Obama would meet with Iranian and Syrian leaders. More recently, in his CNN mop-up interview, he distanced himself from Ahmadinejad in part by saying that we don't know who will be in power when and if Obama's at bat.

From the Chicago Tribune online:

Quote:

The Swamp: Obama backtracks on meeting enemies?

Obama backtracks on meeting enemies?
5/21/08
by Frank James

Reporters are noticing that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been working overtime to finesse his nettlesome (for him) answer during one of the five million presidential debates that he would meet with the leaders of U.S. enemies without preconditions during his first year in office if he's elected president.

The answer has proven hugely problematic for Obama because it first gave Sen. Hillary Clinton and now Sen. John McCain an opening to attack him as a foreign-policy naif.

So Obama and his surrogates are doing what one does in Congress, they are revising and extending his remarks to willing media ears.

This ABC News piece captures what's going on:

The Obama campaign is now offering a more nuanced approach that would not necessarily include a presidential meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and that stresses diplomatic work that would take place before any such meetings take place.

Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. ... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Rice said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

Obama himself is working hard to get his foreign-policy gloves up to keep McCain from pounding him silly.

More from Rick Klein's ABC News piece:

Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper in an interview Tuesday that he sees no contradiction in the statements, explaining that he has always said that lower-level diplomatic contacts would lay the groundwork for a presidential meeting.

"I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything," Obama said. "They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

Good luck with that backfilling, senator. The problem for Obama here is that he probably erred by accepting the premise of the question from a voter at last July's CNN/YouTube debate, that is, a meeting without preconditions in the first year.

Even people without foreign-policy credentials knew Obama's answer would expose him to the very argument McCain is making now.

Obama had the misfortune of being asked the question first, which didn't give him the time to play off the answer of one his fellow presidential contenders. If you reread the exchange, you can see that Clinton realized immediately that Obama had stepped in it and foreshadowed the McCain campaign.

STEPHEN SORTA (Diamond Bar, California): In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

MR. COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight. Senator Obama?

SEN. OBAMA: I would. 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. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.
We've been talking about Iraq. One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

MR. COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen Sorta, if he believes he got an answer to his question.

MR. SORTA: Hello. I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

MR. COOPER: Senator Clinton?

SEN. CLINTON: While I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these during my first year, I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort, because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse.

But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy, and I will use a lot of high- level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.

But certainly we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be. (Applause.)

Obama will no doubt keep arguing that Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan negotiated with American enemies, setting the precedent for his answer.

But, of course, those presidents, including JFK, were cold warriors. Because of their perceived strength on national-security issues (Kennedy campaigned on increasing the spending on U.S. missiles) those presidents had greater leeway in making rapprochements with U.S. enemies.

Obama doesn't have that luxury. Which is why he is working so hard to "revise and extend" his remarks about meeting with U.S. adversaries.

centrino · 05-24-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julia

Then to defend a strawman argument that the McCain campaign, Novak and Krauth are pimping...?

Puh-lease.

Julia -what you seem to be missing is that Obama is changing his stance because he and he team realizes his original statements/position will hurt them. Watch the original debate clip- then watch Clinton and Edwards comments immediately following (in the same debate).

The "no preconditions" have taken on conditions. In the debate he was vehement that his stance would be radically different than that of the current administration. He's changed his original position to be more in line with what the others have said- because he's being beat up.

Obama Qualifies Stance
On Iran Diplomacy
Wall Street Journal
By JAY SOLOMON
May 24, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama, under attack from President Bush and John McCain for pledges to meet with Iran's leadership, has started to qualify his prior bold stance, setting new preconditions and qualifications.

At the same time, Sen. McCain's stand against talks with Tehran turns out to be more nuanced as well. Indeed, the two candidates' positions seem to be converging on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the early debates of the likely general-election candidates.

A centerpiece of Sen. Obama's foreign policy has been what he says is placing a greater emphasis on diplomacy than President Bush, including engaging Washington's adversaries. Speaking Friday in Miami, Sen. Obama told a Cuban-American audience: "It's time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike," including Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

The Illinois senator drew heat in July after pledging in a debate his willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea during his first year in office, without preconditions.

The Democratic presidential front-runner framed his position as a sharp break from the administration's focus on isolating adversaries, which he said has only diminished U.S. influence globally. He said such dialogue with Washington's adversaries was central to America's hopes of extricating itself from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sen. Obama, his aides say, never specifically declared a desire for a one-on-one meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Sen. Obama didn't directly rule it out, either. In response to the query last summer about whether he would meet Iran's leader -- unnamed -- during his year in office, Sen. Obama replied: "I would."

His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. McCain have both portrayed Sen. Obama's pledge as evidence of a lack of foreign-policy experience -- even naivete. President Bush this month in Israel took what was widely seen as a thinly veiled swipe at Sen. Obama by equating dialogue with governments like Iran's as the type of "appeasement" that gave rise to Nazi Germany.

In near-daily references over the past two weeks, Sen. McCain has painted Sen. Obama as willing to engage directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad, a leader who has openly called for Israel's destruction and questions the Holocaust.

"The President of the United States sitting down across the table from Ahmadinejad would increase his influence and his prestige...and would probably scare the daylights out of other countries in the region," Sen. McCain said Tuesday.

Even some foreign-policy analysts who have voiced support for Sen. Obama's overall approach toward Iran say a presidential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad ahead of 2009 Iranian elections could undercut U.S. foreign-policy interests. They say such a summit could enhance Mr. Ahmadinejad's political standing and marginalize Iranian moderates competing in the Iranian vote.

Facing these criticisms, Sen. Obama and his advisers have moved to define more clearly the conditions under which he would meet Iranian leaders as president. They have regularly repeated in recent days that Sen. Obama wouldn't necessarily meet Mr. Ahmadinejad, noting he could be out of office next year. But they also have stressed that any meeting involving Sen. Obama and an Iranian leader would occur only after lower-level meetings at which the terms and issues of the engagement would be set.

"The point is that I wouldn't refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want," Sen. Obama said on May 16. "But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have preparation...lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work through with Iranian counterparts, an agenda."

Some analysts question how different Sen. Obama's approach toward Iran would ultimately be from the Bush administration's. Despite President Bush's veiled swipe at Sen. Obama, Pentagon and State Department officials have held intermittent meetings in Baghdad with Iranian diplomats over the past year in a bid to find common ground on stabilizing Iraq.

Sen. McCain also has articulated in recent days a stance on Iran that sounds more similar to Sen. Obama's approach than the Arizona senator's most blistering sound bites would suggest. While ruling out his own direct meetings with Iranian leaders, barring a major shift in Iranian behavior, Sen. McCain said he would continue to support the types of lower-level contacts that the U.S. currently is pursuing with Iran.

Jonesy · 05-24-2008, 02:49 PM

Obama did not necessarily mean he personally would engage in diplomacy. He meant, as an administration, the policy would be different.

Americans are incredibly superficial. They have difficulty understanding when things should not be taken at face-value. The most striking evidence comes in the 'pursuit of happiness' ideal. This notion is not part of the Constitution. It is not law. And it is not meant to be taken at face-value, yet it foolishly drives the mentality of an entire nation.

centrino · 05-24-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Obama did not necessarily mean he personally would engage in diplomacy. He meant, as an administration, the policy would be different.

Americans are incredibly superficial. They have difficulty understanding when things should not be taken at face-value. The most striking evidence comes in the 'pursuit of happiness' ideal. This notion is not part of the Constitution. It is not law. And it is not meant to be taken at face-value, yet it foolishly drives the mentality of an entire nation.

How do you know what he meant? You'll discount direct statements because you just know?

Kanadesaga · 05-24-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Obama has publicly stated that he will talk directly with any of them.

This means that Obama will talk directly with al Qaeda, he will talk directly with the Taliban, he will talk directly to the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, he will talk directly with Kim Il-sung, and his first meeting will probably be with Osama bin Laden!

Yeah right...gimme a fricken break...

It was a stupid thing for Obama to say, besides, the US always has dialogue in some form or fashion, probably with every nation in the world. And this dialogue takes place at the levels which make most sense for the moment depending on topic or issue. When things at lower levels get too robust, they simply move the issue up to the next group until it eventually reaches the top levels.

An effective CEO hires great people to work with them, and these people create effective departments to deal with their respective responsibilities, and this is the most efficient process. If the CEO believes they should be the front person on everything, then what is the purpose of the thousands of diplomats around the world??

Obama is dead wrong on this one...

We've had 8 years of a "CEO" president. How's that working out?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode