About This Blog
We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.
Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:
...But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president
Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.
Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:
“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):
Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president... Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees...“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change..."
Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive....
Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:
Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.
Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.
They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.