Obama Dishonest on Preconditions for Negotiating with Iran?

Here is another whopper. On Obama's recent trip he was asked about his promise during the South Carolina debate to meet with the Iranian government without preconditions. Obama claimed that there was no inconsistency in his positions over time. This is from Obama's speech in Sderot, Israel.

QUESTION: In your first year as president, with president Ahmadinejad, without preconditions, is there anything you have heard today, in your discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge? Or are you still standing by that?

OBAMA: Dan, I think you have to take a look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded.

The question is, would I meet with leaders without preconditions in pursuit...


OBAMA: I understand. I understand.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) ... in your first year as president.

OBAMA: But I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America.

And, Dan, that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity.

But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without pre-conditions and meeting without preparation. You know, the specific context of your question let's say with respect to Iran, is a Bush administration policy, for example, that said, we will not involve ourselves in any diplomatic negotiations or even talks with the Iranians until they have made the decision to stand down on their nuclear weapons. Well, that presumably would be the topic of negotiations. And if we take that position, then it's not surprising that we might not make much progress on that front.

Yet, here is what happened at that debate last year.

QUESTION: "[W]ould 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?"... 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. And I think that it is a disgrace that we haven't spoken with them." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

In addition, he repeat the promise at the South Carolina debate at other times:

Question: 'Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ...' Obama: 'Uh huh.' Question: 'Would you still meet with him today?' Obama: 'Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate.' (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)

When is the MSM going to prepared enough to actually ask a follow up question?



Blogger Unknown said...

Why do people keep forgetting the key word in the original question:

[W]ould you be willing to...

(copy and pasted from your quote)

"WILLING" changes the question and answer here. If the question was "Would you....meet with Iran" I could understand the outrage. It's simply a matter of not being so naive as to take possibilities off the table. Obama never said he wanted to invite all the evil dictators of the world to the white house for drinks during the first week of his presidency! He said he would be WILLING to meet with them.

Would you be willing to take one step back if it meant you could take 4 steps forward? I think most of us would.

However, you have to remember that unless you have a good chance of getting the 4 steps forward out of it, you're not going to do it. Just because you're willing to do something doesn't mean you are DEFINITELY going to do it.

I'm willing to vote for McCain, for example. I don't see this as "Obama or no one".

However, unless McCain makes some drastic changes to his viewpoints, my willingness to vote for him won't amount to anything. I'm leaving the possibility out there, however, as there is still a small chance that something could sway me.

That's all Obama is doing by saying he would "be willing" to have direct talks. He's keeping the possibility on the table so that if something changes in the future, he doesn't have to pull his foot out of his mouth to choose diplomatic relations over violence.

10/08/2008 7:56 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

There is no such thing as 'willing', other than the left is willing to let everything BHO & sidekick say slide.

BHO said he would meet with them, and than attacked Bush for NOT. As a nation, we should NEVER talk with our enemies. NOW he says 'he never said that'. How come people don't take umbrage over that? If McCain or Palin said something (and especially videotaped for ALL to hear exactly as it was said no less) than recanted it saying it never happened, EVERY one would jump on it.

BHO is a continual liar. YT is full of his lies for those that wish to face up to them. But I suppose it's much easier to not view them and continue to blog excuses for him, eh?

10/09/2008 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow a whole lot of nothing said in that response. Lets just dupe the American public and tell them what they want to hear depending on the situation at hand. SO totally Liberal Obamaesque!

10/09/2008 11:57 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

As a nation, we should NEVER talk with our enemies.

Do you really feel that way? I pray that you are never in a position of power if you feel that diplomacy should NEVER be used (emphasis yours).

All politicians reverse sides and change positions. You and I can counter each other all day with lies that candidates have told or flip-flops that have occurred.

Why not focus on the real issue instead: Should we be willing to talk with our enemies if there is a chance of it helping our National Security?

I believe that yes, we should keep the option of diplomacy open at all times. Sending our young troops into countries on the other side of the world to get killed definitely comes AFTER attempts at diplomacy.

You sound as if you'd actually prefer us to invade Iran right now, invade North Korea, and hell- why not start a war with Russia since they did some thing we didn't like? You don't feel as if something could possibly be gained by actually talking?

I'd like to think that the US is above simply being the schoolyard bully of the world. Taking a mentality of "we don't like you so here's a few bombs dropped on you" isn't going to help things in the long run. It's just going to make other countries hate us even more than they already do.

10/09/2008 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only thing worse than diplomacy, is war."

10/15/2008 2:10 PM  
Blogger 0s0-Pa said...

Genocide is worse than war =p
-Jack @ How to become a police officer

7/20/2009 8:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home