Patterico's Pontifications

5/10/2008

Obama Will Won’t Talk to Ahmadinejad

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 3:04 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

LittleGreenFootballs addresses whether Obama really meant “he wouldn’t” when he said “he would” talk to Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

In a New York Times article, Susan E. Rice, an Obama adviser (who may be on her way out given Obama’s track record with advisers), stated that his position had been “distorted and reframed.” She said that Obama never said he would have “initiated contacts at the Presidential level” with rogue states like Iran.

But LGF recalls that he did:

“The problem is, Barack Obama did say he’d meet with Iran unconditionally, in front of a lot of people, at the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate last July.

He was specifically and directly asked if he would meet with the leader of Iran (and the leaders of several other “so-called rogue states”) without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency, and his answer was, “I would.”

Video at the LGF link.

— DRJ

17 Responses to “Obama Will Won’t Talk to Ahmadinejad”

  1. Amateur hour – that’s what Obama’s “change” really means. America really does not need an even more leftist version of Jimmy Carter.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Was she parsing the point that “initiating talks” is different than “meet with”? It’s hard to believe that Obama’s campaign would lie that blatantly when they have to know that YouTube video exists.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  3. Slick Willy could talk his way out of this one with his tongue tied behind his back; let’s see how Obamamessiah handles it.

    Old Coot (f3b1d8)

  4. That pesky YouTube… you’d think these people would finally get it – what they say publicly is forever embedded in the eyes and ears of the masses. And no back pedaling can erase it. And the more they back pedal, the more we know what the truth is.

    Dana (8e3918)

  5. But when a presidential candidate says “I would meet with Iran’s mad dog, without preconditions, ” does he mean

    in person

    ? That said, I think Obama has not handled his foreign policy posturing smartly. There is a general perception now that Obama is pro-hamas and less confrontational when dealing with these sworn enemies of sanity. That image remains the greatest and only threat to his candidacy. Forget the experience argument. In the light of this very flawed outlook, he has to reposition himself by redefining his words and making it more of an issue of semantics. Obama is doing whatever he needs to to change this perception. Whether this perception is true or false remains to be seen. Personally I am beginning to feel a little disturbed.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  6. beginning to feel a little bit disturbed?

    kishnevi (202292)

  7. love2008, it is not the only threat to his candidacy. Look at how he is trying to deny even saying what is clearly on tape.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  8. #7
    Precisely my point! He is trying to do what he feels he needs to do to change the perception. He knows this will be the focus of the GE. Watch how this position will evolve into how he was not understood and how his words were distorted. When he said “I would meet with iran, ” what does “I” mean? “I” as president or “I” as an administration. Its going to transform into a matter of interpretation of “I”.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  9. Let’s keep in mind that it isn’t him speaking, it’s Susan Rice saying that the opposition has “distorted and reframed” what he said when they’ve done no such thing. In other words, his adviser is lying about his opponent. Someone ought to ask him if he’s going to reject the old politics as usual and reject such BS coming from his staff.

    Pablo (99243e)

  10. Hi Pablo, Happy Mothers sunday. What message do you have for mothers all over the world?

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  11. To be fair, this isn’t so much an Obama campaign gaffe as it is a Susan Rice gaffe. His campaign still has the “without preconditions” language up on his campaign web site (LGF has the link) and it’s been up for hours.

    That means one of four things:

    1 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama doesn’t understand Obama’s own stated foreign policy positions
    2 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, accidentally let slip that Obama doesn’t really believe in no preconditions, he’s just saying that to fool the chump liberal Dems who are backing him in the remaining primaries
    3 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, lied in order to “trick” the media into not asking hard questions about Obama, and it blew up in her face
    4 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, is trying to undermine part of his foreign policy plan that she personally doesn’t like

    None of those are good for Obama’s campaign.

    Fire the liar!

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  12. 1 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama doesn’t understand Obama’s own stated foreign policy positions
    2 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, accidentally let slip that Obama doesn’t really believe in no preconditions, he’s just saying that to fool the chump liberal Dems who are backing him in the remaining primaries
    3 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, lied in order to “trick” the media into not asking hard questions about Obama, and it blew up in her face
    4 – Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Obama, is trying to undermine part of his foreign policy plan that she personally doesn’t like

    None of those are good for Obama’s campaign.

    5)Susan Rice was sent out to make a statement that would deflect criticism about an inane position taken by Sen. Obama, and she is the sacrificial lamb if it blows up.

    Sen. Obama is given “plausible deniability” about the statement in either direction.

    It attempts to divert the eye from the magic trick, by sleight of hand. “The evil other side” concocted this to intentionally distort Sen. Obama’s position”…now…go attack them for doing so like good little deadwood lackeys.

    And…”this is a distraction as well as being a distortion”. Quit being distracted by my lifelong attraction to extreme radicals, quit being distracted by my associations with them, quit being distracted by my team of closest advisors who hate Israel, hate our own country, and hate capitalism.

    Quit asking why those are my mentors and spiritual advisors, my moral compass, my worldview teachers.

    Quit asking and step in line with the leftist agenda. Or my Soros funded, Kos Kidz inspired bulge and spittle corps will turn on you like they did on Joe Lieberman, Bill and Hillary, George and Charlie.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  13. I think Obama’s campaign is now realizing how deep they’re buried nationally. After NC, they decided, “It’s won, let’s start the GE campaign.” And GE rule number one for a liberal candidate, move to the middle. This was the campaign’s first attempt. Except there’s one problem. He can’t. He’s not just liberal. He’s fringe, Marxist radical liberal. He’s a “Che Guevera” image (complete with creepy Soviet era posters). He’s the messiah of the bomb throwers. So, move to the middle?

    As the old joke goes, “Um…you can’t get there from here.” In fact a fish has a better chance riding a bicycle. On ESPN. In the X Games. Then getting a Gatorade contract. Worth more than Tiger’s.

    Anywho, unless Obama invents a time machine (well…he is the messiah, so, I dunno, I guess its possible), he’s screwed. Like, “holy shit, landslide!” screwed. The pollsters can fudge the national numbers all day long and the media can perform round the clock fellatio on Obama through November. Won’t matter. Paul Begala is an asshat, but 100% correct. Obama cannot win with just effete, America hating liberals and African-Americans.

    Add the Hamas thing and his kissy face policy with Ahmadinnerjacket and his campaign is looking around asking, “where’d all our Jews go?” Hence, Susan Rice’s pathetic lie attempt to stop the bleeding.

    I look forward to Obama continuing to insult voters and embarass himself with these laughable, “not ready for primetime” hail mary passes to the middle. And $20 bucks says he does it on Fox News. All he’ll manage to generate is rage from his kook base, cricket sounds from blue dog/ blue collar dems, and fits of laughter from conservatives.

    Democrats should get used to three words now. President. John. McCain.

    Happy Mom’s Day everybody.

    Lamontyoubigdummy (b5d02f)

  14. Sen. Obama will only hold talks with Ahmadinejad if he can name all 57 states.

    kaf (41cb4e)

  15. Um, kaf, do you mean “if Obama can name all 57 states” or “if Ahmadinejad can name all 57 states? :-)

    LarryD (feb78b)

  16. “I have said consistently that we should have direct talks with Iran without preconditions but not without preparation,” Obama said. “Any time we initiate talks . . . it is going to proceed in a step-by-step fashion with lower-level diplomats meeting and maybe . . . discussions of noncontroversial topics, which over time lead to more substantial discussions.

    “And so I would not meet with Iran without an agenda, and on that agenda would be the odious and constant attacks rhetorically on Israel, the funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, the development of nuclear weapons and stability in Iraq.

    Lynne (c36902)

  17. BTW Obama saying that Iran is a ‘tiny’ country that does not pose a threat and that he would negotiate with Iran. Nazi Germany was also small compared to the USSR for instance. It was even smaller than Iran and had no oil. That did not stop the Nazis from causing a lot more trouble to America than the Russians ever managed. How did they do it? Only with the help of Neville Chamberlain who thought that talking to a murderous enemy is the best way to avoid war. Obama should think about it. Chamberlain was the appeasing British PM who ‘talked’ to Hitler, did that stop the latter from attacking European countries? Come on, it is not too difficult to see the analogy with Obama’s approach…

    Dido (977f60)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2449 secs.