Barack Obama gave John McCain a huge gift today, declaring Iran not to be a "serious threat" to the United States. Given the opportunity to extend a debate on national security matters, John McCain understandably leaped.
In the bigger picture, the recent and massive brouhaha over discussions of modern Democratic tendencies toward "appeasement" in foreign affairs illuminates one of the clearest delineations between Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative. The left is comfortable talking - and trusting - foreign leaders of ill intent because they tend to believe in the inherent goodness of human nature. Conservatives, in contrast, view man as capable of good things, but ultimately flawed as a rule. Thus, trusting a regime with a proven record of deceptive, harmful, and violent activity has little appeal to the right.
The vociferous reaction of the Democratic establishment against President Bush's recent comments, with the added twist of Barack Obama and John McCain engaging directly as well, speaks much to the fear Democrats have of being made to look weak on matters of national security. They reason they fear that outcome, however, is because it keeps happening in Presidential elections. And it keeps happening because there is more than a grain of truth to the accusation.
Democratic Presidential Administrations in recent memory bear this out. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have been noted for inept treating with dictators and malevolent regimes. Likewise, both managed to be surprised when they discovered that such bad actors were both dishonest and unreliable in living up to their promises. There is little irony in the fact that the combined work of both men gave the world the 1994 Agreed Framework to deal with North Korea's nuclear program - a deal Colin Powell famously said the North Koreans started cheating on ""before the ink was dry."
Outraged liberals are quick to point out that US Presidents have met with other enemies, such as assorted Soviet leaders as well as the famous Nixon going to China breakthrough. The gapping hole in that argument is that the former was a superpower and the latter was a clearly and rapidly emerging regional powerhouse. Relations with a nation's polar equal are eminently prudent, especially if one can construe mutual, shared interests such as joint economic prosperity, desire not to end the world in a nuclear war, etc., etc.
Recent Democratic openness to rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states who have few ultimate goals beyond the advancement of their interests and the crushing of their opponents is not a reasonable point of comparison. Whether it is Nancy Pelosi going to Syria for little purpose other than to give Bashar Assad a photo op, Jimmy Carter disgracing himself by meeting with Hamas, or Barack Obama declaring his willingness to hold undefined talks - for what purpose exactly? - with the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and Hugo Chavezs of the world, current Democratic visions for foreign policy are vacuous.
Democrats complain that such talk is garbage; that they will be tough when conversing with such evil men. Tough talk works great when its occurence is well orchestrated and when the conversing party has a vested interest in likewise securing an honest agreement. In this case, people like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime have a proven inability to not bargain in good faith. They want to win, us and Israel to lose, and that is that. Even the great denizen of the internationalist pundit class, Tom Friedman, has declared Iran threat numero uno in the Middle East.
Asking such ill-intended antagonists on the world stage, lacking in serious interests other than complete destruction of the other side, has never been about asking nicely and hoping for the best as Carter and Clinton did and as Obama seems publicly ready to do. It is about the willingness to say, enough is enough. We (the United States) and every friend we can muster (Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc.) will oppose belligerent regimes opposing our interests with everything we can. At first that means diplomacy, then economic sanctions. Next comes more extensive international isolation and if need be, and we pray not, war.
Americans are a generous and benevolent people, slow to war and ultimately seekers of comity on the world stage. Yet, when our abeyant anger is unleashed, we quite often have a national habit of finishing what we started, as recent and more distant history reminds us. Sadly, a number of Democrats appear to have forgotten that history, including that of their party's icon in FDR, and seem stuck on the part where polite talk across hardwood tables - no matter how evil the adversary - constitutes serious foreign policy breakthroughs.
Maybe the mood of the electorate this year means Obama still wins the Presidency. That doesn't, however, make such naivete in dealing with the likes of the current Iranian regime any more becoming.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 19, 2008 08:07 PM | Email ThisThis really shows how little you understand "the left." Try talking to (note, this does not mean trusting) one of us before you pass such a huge - and incorrect - judgment.
Posted by: Noble on May 19, 2008 10:10 PMPlease.
Posted by: David Onkels on May 19, 2008 10:16 PM
One of the best pieces so far on this subject was by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, titled ''Obama's Unique Appeasement Style''.
Full article at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_unique_appeasement_styl.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
and then this:
"Obama: Initial Meetings With Hostile Nations Would Start With Lower Level Aides; Bush Admin “Preconditions” Are Exactly What Need to Be Negotiated In These Meetings."
Pretty sad when he flip-flops on his own website.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 19, 2008 10:35 PMI want to raise some questions on these points Sen Obama made. I am hoping these will be helpful to other writers.
The scariest thing about Obama is he sounds so self- assured, like he thinks he knows everything there is to know. How would he handle different points of view? What if those points of view contradict his world view? This has been a problem of Bush. It could be even worse under Obama. It is hard to tell.
"They (our Presidents) were willing to talk with the Soviet Union at the time they were saying we want to wipe you off the planet."
"That engagement led to the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin wall."
"Iran spends 1 100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to use they wouldn't stand a chance."
"We should find out what those areas of common interest are."
"We should use that power ... "
1. How does Obama define "serious threat."
2. Does Obama think power "we should use" is some sort of a given, or does it come from some source? If it comes from a source, or sources, then should we try to increase that power? How do we do so?
3. Obama needs to outline what he means by "they wouldn't stand a chance." Would he pre-emptively nuke Tehran? Or invade Iran with ground troops? When, and for what purpose? Would he do this while talks were underway?
4. Does he have any way of quantifying a threat from a country besides the level of spending? Does he consider nukes to be inherently more dangerous than other weapons of mass destruction?
5. What else does he think contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall besides "talks." I agree with Eric above, that the increased military spending helped. So did the willingness of the US to assist in regime change, for example encouraging Lech Walesa in Poland. So did the willingness of people to take a bold stand, and make bold statements, for example, Reagan's "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall."
6. Were the Soviets actually saying "we want to wipe you off the planet?" My memory is hazy on this. I don't recall any comments by Kruschev, Brezhnev, Stalin etc that sound similar to what Ahmenidjab has said about wanting to destroy Israel.
Certainly Communism did not have the religious components of martyrdom that some terrorists who follow Islam have.
6. What motivated the Soviet Union, China, etc to be open to talks with the US? Was it perchance in part our willingness to take stands? If we want to motivate countries to talk with us, in good faith, what would we do?
=======
Two more comments:
First, Sen McCain has proposed a League of Democracies. He should spell that out.
Second, an interesting omission from Obama's list was Vietnam. I had vaguely heard something about McCain leading efforts for reconciliation with Vietnam. I think he should discuss that. I found this article for example.
http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_McCain.html
I think it shows he does know how to talk when there are common interests.
==
In closing, Obama has a lot of questions to answer. Hopefully some press will really put him on the spot and get some straight answers.
Barack Obama, May 18, 2008, Portland, Oregon
This comment certainly makes sense to me! The Soviet Union was a very serious threat to the United States. Over 3 million active duty troops, a Navy comparable in size to ours (except for aircraft carriers), thousands of nuclear weapons on ICBM's, submarines, and planes, numerous satellite countries, an international aggressive expansion plan, you name it.
Exactly how does Iran compare to the former Soviet Union? Sure sounds a lot more in the class of Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela.
McCain apparently wants to attack or invade Iran, because he thinks they are a serious enough threat. If so, why isn't McCain advocating an attack on China, which is much stronger militarily than Iran, happens to still be run by Communists, and has considerably less personal and political freedom than does Iran?
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 20, 2008 01:10 AMOf course the Soviet Union was a bigger numerical threat than Iran, in that they could wipe out the USA and the world for that matter. Iran is a different style of threat ... I think Mr. "Ama-gonna-jihad" might use nukes on Israel, give them to terrorists, plant some in the USA as a threat. The dude is crazy, like the leader of a death cult - it will never end pretty because of their cultic belief that it can't. Commies, did not have a cultic belief that the world HAD to end as we know it.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 20, 2008 01:23 AMPersonally, I'd like to invade Iran, destroy their nuclear facilities, and execute the leadership, but we're too busy with the Big Bush Democracy Debacle to devote any resources to promoting our own country's interests. Insofar as Iran is a threat (and they are a threat, just not a USSR-level threat), the people to blame are those currently running our foreign and defense policy.
Posted by: ScottM on May 20, 2008 05:20 AMThe difference between the Soviet Union and Iran in numbers is true. The Soviet Union had a far larger military and had many ICBM's. On the other hand the Soviet Union also realized that if they nuked us we would conterstrike with oue own nukes. This is what kept the Soviets at bay as they did not want to be anhilated any more than we did. On the otherhand, you have Iran who believes that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and the US is the Great Satan that needs to be destroyed. Iran does not fear being destroyed in a retalitory strike as they believe that it would be Allah's will. So it is ridiculous to compare a Secular Nation such as the Soviet Union that was temepered by the fear of their own loss of power should a nuclear war break out with an Islamic nation that is lead by religous fanatics that truly believe that it is Allah's will for them to destroy another country regardless of the consequences to themselves.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 20, 2008 05:54 AMMr (I know it all) Pope knows the right answer to Iran.
He's just being your typical fool, which he does quite well!
Are the Obamanians going to agree now we've always been at war with Eurasia?
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 06:32 AM
Dude............ LOL.
Nice way to start our morning. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 20, 2008 06:58 AMRev. Wright was his pastor forever. HOW DARE YOU RAISE THE ISSUE?
Throw Rev. Wright under the bus. HOW DARE YOU BRING UP SOMEONE WHO HAS NO PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN & IS OLD NEWS?
Iran is a "tiny" problem. HOW DARE YOU TRY TO COMPARE IRAN TO THE USSR?
Iran is a "grave" problem. HOW DARE YOU TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF IRAN?
It makes my head spin.
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 07:13 AMHey I got a new title for the daily Obama post...."Where in the World is Obama on the issues!"
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 20, 2008 07:20 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html
Well Shannon welcome to the treatment most civilized human beings recognized as being just another day in the political life of King County Washington. The spoiled brat far left dirtbags that your Party harbors, eggs on and elevates to leadership positions within your Party are simply the Democrat's chickens coming how to roost. Here's a quarter, call someone who cares.
Posted by: JDH on May 20, 2008 07:33 AMYou know, for a while I was giving the guy credit for going on the national stage. I always assumed he would do it so much better than I (which isn't a high threshold. Now, I am not so certain that Obama is ready for prime time.
Get Clinton in there Democrats, so I can at least sleep at night till November. This guy is a nightmare and his subjects can't see through the transparency or are afraid to voice it.
Posted by: swatter on May 20, 2008 07:38 AM1. Obama has been consistent in his stance. His website is not contradictory. If you would actually read what he states and not parse it through your "Bush" colored glasses, you would see it. It is not appeasement. It is not satisfying all conditions ahead of time, but it it is having all your lower level groundwork done ahead of time. This makes the actual meeting more effective where one can address the tough issues and not get caught up in the minutia. It also doesn't mean caving in. It does mean meeting face to face to gain understanding where each is coming from and at the end of the day walking away from the table without a deal if one can not be hammored out.
2. It is stupid to say you won't meet with a country until they meet all your preconditions, in Bush terms of preconditions, because there would be nothing to meet with them about to hammer out. Bush is a bipolar politician. With Bush there is only two ways of seeing things. It is black or white, red or blue, and for us or against us. He has boiled his foreign policy down to sound bites mentality and thinks the rest of the world should just accept his vision. You wonder why he is now the most ineffective President of this century and closing in on the record for all time.
3. You can continue to fight the battle using Bush gameplan of black or white, or you can actually choose to have intelligent conversations. The public, for a change, wants intelligent conversations. They are tired of the politician spin.
You see, what people are forgetting is that Obama already has experience in this area. You look at the negotiations surrounding the Illinios Law surrounding taping of confessions in death penalty cases, you would see someone who sat both sides down and hammered out a solution agreeable to all. This wasn't some simple settlement. Both sides had hard, dug-in positions with very valid reasons for their positions.
Posted by: tc on May 20, 2008 07:58 AMNow, how is a "tiny" threat less clear than a "grave" threat? To my little mind, those appear to be contradictory statements of the kind that are used to torpedo Clinton and McCain, but when the Obamessiah speaks them, why, he was right then and he is right now.
How utterly wonderful he is.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 07:59 AMHey weren't you also telling us that Rev Wright was just "misunderstood" as well?
Speaking of Obama being inconsistent, I see now he will wear the flag pin. Does that make him a tin flag patriot now too?
Posted by: pbj on May 20, 2008 08:06 AMAnd Andrew Brown, I think I heard the bell ring, so you'd better run off to class now.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 20, 2008 08:14 AMObama has tried to rewrite history plenty of times so far in this campaign. Here is a short list:
Obama claims he has not been planning a run for President for years; yet there is plenty of proof he was.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4470
Obama said he would never have direct talks with terrorists; yet he will negotiate with Iran who is a terrorist state.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29969_Obama-_I_Have_Never_Said_I_Would_Negotiate_with_Terrorists
Obama said he would not criticize Carter for speaking with Hamas; yet days after he did.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3532797,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3530608,00.html
and of course there is what I have pointed out on his website that clearly states that he would not set preconditions to meet with the Iranina President, but then states that he would set preconditions before he meets with the Iranina President.
Not to mention his Iran is a Tiny problem and now the whole deal of Iran is a Grave Threat comments.
He is all over the place on the issues.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 20, 2008 08:19 AMI see no contradiction here.
Hope!
Change!
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 08:53 AMThe Democrat position toward the US in world affairs is that it's aggressive, arrogant and needs a good licking. Those poor dictators are, in their opinion, just the thugs to give it.
Example: Rep. McGovern, D-Massachusetts, doing all he can to support FARC and Hugo Chavez against Colombia.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 20, 2008 09:03 AMCould it be they can't defend their guy changing his views 180 degrees in one day?
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 09:22 AMPBJ@25:
Re: Rev. Wright, I believe I stated that the specific sermons were misunderstood. I also stated that TUCC's Black Theology stance was being misunderstood. I don't recall specifically stating that Rev. Wright was misunderstood. If I had, I was mistaken. Rev. Wright's antics in front of the press a couple weeks were deplorable and not becoming of a pastor, regardless of his theological viewpoint.
Re: Flag Pin - Yes, I noticed Obama start to wear it. I has bowed to MSM pressure to play the political game. I don't believe he has changed his view, he just wants it to be a non-issue. So when does Hillary and McCain start wearing flag pins?
TrueSoldier@29:
I am not sure if you are being serious with the Hillary nonsense of running for President from Kindergarten piece or not. I am going to assume you were joking with this nonsense.
Negotiating with a sovereign nation is different than negotiating with terrorist. I hope you know and understand the difference.
Regarding your statement on his position concerning Clinton meeting with Hamas, I can't find other (unbiased) information to back up your claim. Unfortunately, and this is a slam of Obama, his website doesn't have Search on it to search back awhile in the HQ Blog to find what was posted there. There wasn't anything in the News or Press Releases sections (either way), which was strange, for I thought it was at least a press release when he came out against Carter meeting with Hamas. I can find plenty of stories backing up his position against Carter meeting Hamas, but I can't verify the information regarding any change of position. I also don't remember anything coming through on my email from the campaign about agreeing with Carter meeting with Hamas.
Regarding his website, I stated in the previous thread that I don't agree with the precept that his website contradicts itself. Pre-arrangements doesn't equate to pre-conditions. To conflate the two is to put on your "Bush" colored glasses and see a bipolar world of two extremes, and to see a world of either you are for me or against me world. The world is a lot more gray than Bush wants to make it out.
I can't find the "tiny" quote. Is there another source than the one Eric linked to. That source is a blocked source from my browser.
Steve Miller @24
What is your sources for your information? Like stated above, I can't get to Eric's "tiny" threat source.
Steve Miller @26 and 28 (Double Post)
Huh? Was this said by Obama, if so, source???? Or, is this just something you made up?
Steve Miller @30:
What are the sources for your quotes? Also, what is the context for your quotes?
==
OK, so what's the point. Is a death confession in Illinois anywhere close to being as complex as trading land for peace in Israel, or getting Iran to turn its Shahab 3 missile into a plowshare?
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on May 20, 2008 09:42 AMCHANGE WE CAN'T AFFORD
Look for the yard signs in your neighborhood soon.
Posted by: Dengle on May 20, 2008 09:58 AMNotice, Obama's statement was not that Iran was a "tiny" threat, it was that it was a tiny nation that did not pose the same level of threat as the Soviets did in their day (and still do). From a national defense posture, this is so very true. Iran may pose a threat in the region, but the do not pose a global threat, like the Soviets did/do, and especially like China today. For example, on a daily basis Chinese hackers are constantly attempting to break into DoD Information Networks. They have been persistent in effort. Heck, Isreal has more "spies" in the US probably than all the other Middle East countries combined (just a theory, I can't prove this statement, so don't get defensive).
If you follow the article, it also states that Obama thinks because of Iraq, Iran has become a bigger danger in the Middle East. I am not sure if he used "grave" or not in the actual statement, never the less, the statement itself is true. It is just as true as the fact that there wasn't Al Quaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded, no matter how many times Cheny tries to state the falsehood to try to make it a true statement. Our continued, nation-building presence in Iraq has raised the overall regions tensions. It has caused Iran to support their fellow Shites in the Iraq Civil War that is going on. The sooner we reduce troop levels, the better, and more stabilizing the effect will be to the region.
Stuart Jenner: @34
You have two issues there that need to be separated. The Isreal/Palestine conflict, I would agree that it isn't as complex, but this issue has been going on for decades with several administrations attempting to crack the problem. I don't view either McCain or Obama to settle this issue in the next four to eight years. With regards to negotiating with Iran, you need to remember that at the point Obama would be involved (i.e., after pre-meeting work has been hammored out), it will come down to listening and convincing Iran to consider other outcomes to have them abandon their efforts. I have no doubt it will be difficult. I also believe that having someone who has done this type of work is a plus, as opposed to the current president, who claimed to be a uniter, not a divider, and has proven to be anything close to a uniter. Doesn't working out an agreement through negotiation a lot more sense, if it can be done, than sending our troops in harms way for an unclear purpose/mission? What would be the purpose of a military campaign into Iran?
There are those pesky words he used.
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 10:04 AMWhat does that say about his moral courage?
After all, Fox News is just a "tiny" media outlet.
Posted by: steve miller on May 20, 2008 10:07 AMhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983202,00.html
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on May 20, 2008 10:50 AM2. Obama is willing to negotiate with our foreign enemies without preconditions. Paraphrasing John Bolton in a recent op-ed article: Negotiation is a thcnique, not a policy.
3. Obama keeps changing his position on various issues. Obama will counter by pointing out that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. However, his inconsistency shows that he is intellectually dishonest. He is confident that the MSM will continue to provide cover for his deception.
Posted by: Paddy on May 20, 2008 11:58 AMWhen Obama used the word "tiny", it was being used to describe Iran's threat to the United States in comparison to the Soviet threat when they had thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the United States. I would tend to agree with that comparison.
When asked the following day, he clarified that Iran is indeed a "grave" threat in today's world, but not when compared to threats we have faced in our history.
I know this is a bit complicated, but it's really not that hard to comprehend.
Posted by: Splinter on May 20, 2008 12:33 PMAnd as far as being the “most liberal senator”… If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with…um…fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also…OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton…the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It’s not the electoral college and never has been. This isn’t a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don’t. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn’t matter and now she’s paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I’m frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called ‘feminists’ would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn’t voting for a woman just because she’s a woman, ladies. That’s just idiocy.
And as far as being the “most liberal senator”… If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with…um…fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also…OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton…the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It’s not the electoral college and never has been. This isn’t a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don’t. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn’t matter and now she’s paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I’m frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called ‘feminists’ would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn’t voting for a woman just because she’s a woman, ladies. That’s just idiocy.
And as far as being the “most liberal senator”… If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with…um…fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also…OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton…the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It’s not the electoral college and never has been. This isn’t a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don’t. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn’t matter and now she’s paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I’m frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called ‘feminists’ would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn’t voting for a woman just because she’s a woman, ladies. That’s just idiocy.
And as far as being the �most liberal senator�� If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with�um�fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also�OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton�the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It�s not the electoral college and never has been. This isn�t a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don�t. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn�t matter and now she�s paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I�m frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called �feminists� would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn�t voting for a woman just because she�s a woman, ladies. That�s just idiocy.
Makes sense to me!
And as far as being the "most liberal senator" If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with...um...fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also...OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton...the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It's not the electoral college and never has been. This isn't a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don't. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn't matter and now she's paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I�m frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called "feminists" would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn't voting for a woman just because she's a woman, ladies. That's just idiocy.
Makes sense to me!
And as far as being the "most liberal senator" If you look at all the Senate votes Obama participated in compared with all the Senators' votes, you'll find that he ranks 41st in 2007, more conservative than Hillary, at 29th. If you look at his lifetime voting record he ranks 25th, a solid, middle of the road moderate Democrat, still more conservative that Hillary.
So, the next time you hear the lie, challenge it with...um...fact. Check it out for yourself.
Also...OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"
Please report facts: http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html
As for Clinton...the agreed metric of victory in this nominating contest was ALWAYS the number of pledged and unpledged delegates, counting BOTH caucuses and primaries. It's not the electoral college and never has been. This isn't a general election. If a candidate is unsatisfied with the process, bring it up BEFORE the contest begins.
Do any of you sincerely believe that Clinton would be so upset about the caucus votes if SHE had won them? I sure as heck don't. Mark Penn put it in her head that caucus states didn't matter and now she's paying the price for listening to him.
And as a young, college-educated woman, I'm frankly disgusted that an older generation of so-called "feminists" would seriously consider voting for McCain out of selfish spite if Clinton is not the nominee. Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk. Feminism isn't voting for a woman just because she's a woman, ladies. That's just idiocy.
"Re: Rev. Wright, I believe I stated that the specific sermons were misunderstood. I also stated that TUCC's Black Theology stance was being misunderstood. I don't recall specifically stating that Rev. Wright was misunderstood. If I had, I was mistaken. Rev. Wright's antics in front of the press a couple weeks were deplorable and not becoming of a pastor, regardless of his theological viewpoint.
It was quite entertaining to see you strain so vigorously to pur a positive spin on Wright's hateful words and then when Obama finally came out and threw him under the bus, you could have heard a pin drop in those threads.
Re: Flag Pin - Yes, I noticed Obama start to wear it. I has bowed to MSM pressure to play the political game. I don't believe he has changed his view, he just wants it to be a non-issue. So when does Hillary and McCain start wearing flag pins?
When did either Hillary or McCain state they would not wear the flag pin? Obama did make such a statement. McCain occassionally wears one, not all the time. I presume the same is true with Hillary. However neither made the declaration they would never let it adorn their apparel giving the pretense that they were taking a 'principled stand' and not what some here have called "tin pin patriot".
So I ask, is Obama now a "tin pin patriot" ?
Which begs the question, if Obama thought he was taking a principled stand by refusing to wear the pin, does that mean all his principled stands are subject to the latest poll?
Is that what leadership means to the Democrats, flip fop to the latest poll? If so, let me suggest simply replacing the candidate with a computer database that will spit out the latest "principled position" in real time as the poll numbers change. It is more efficient.
Posted by: pbj on May 20, 2008 12:59 PMYou know what real idiocy is? Posting the same thing 6 TIMES.
Posted by: REBEL on May 20, 2008 01:07 PMYet you have a hard time using a computer we see.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 20, 2008 01:16 PMHere is what he said from the article on Fox:
"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."
On Thursday, his campaign issued a statement: "We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It's about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war.
SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299439,00.html
WATERLOO, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he doesn't wear the American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Asked about the decision Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped doing so shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.
"The truth is that right after 9-11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."
Obama was campaigning in Iowa Thursday, the second day of a four-day trip to the early voting state.
SOURCE: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S2JKG02&show_article=1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_dAZVH6yaCA
Check it out!
Posted by: Jimbo on May 20, 2008 03:11 PMhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=_dAZVH6yaCA
Check it out!
Posted by: Jimbo on May 20, 2008 03:11 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_dAZVH6yaCA
Check it out!
Posted by: Jimbo on May 20, 2008 03:12 PMHmm...
Posted by: Lysander on May 20, 2008 08:29 PMWeak argument for Sen. Obama. While he sounds good speaking off the teleprompter, he has given too many off the cuff and bulls**t responses when put on the spot with tough questions. He could be labeled a Dan Quayle with charisma, but Quayle apparently had better foreign policy background.
Posted by: KS on May 20, 2008 08:35 PMBut it is worth noting... The CIA tends to agree with Obama, not McCain in terms of the seriousness of the threat of Iran.
Really Iran should be a subject McCain supporters should be skirting away from. McCain lost all credibility with me and many others when he joked about bombing the country. That is not something you joke about!
Posted by: Lysander on May 20, 2008 09:04 PMCould you document who in the CIA agrees with Sen. Obama. McCain admitted the gaffe with Iraq. So what about Obama's association with William Ayers ? He loses big points with me there.
Check this out -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_dAZVH6yaCA
Could you document who in the CIA agrees with Sen. Obama ? McCain admitted the gaffe with Iran. So what about Obama's association with William Ayers ? He loses big points with me there.
Check this out -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_dAZVH6yaCA
It was big in the news for a while because it showed that Bush was once again misleading the people since he had the knowledge earlier yet had made many false statements about Iran up until the report was published (or was it leaked I can not remember).
Posted by: Lysander on May 20, 2008 09:42 PMI think Iran's nuclear delivery is a big issue. I think the odds are much higher of Iran lobbing a nuclear missile at Israel or elsewhere than the odds ever were of the USSR unilaterally lobbing one at the US.
Also, the odds are much higher of a bomb, or the knowledge of what to do plus the materials, "leaking" out of Iran and migrating somewhere else where the pieces are put together. The somewhere else might be a rogue state, or might be a faction that controls a state, say a Hezbollah.
There's a huge amount that could go wrong. Obama is way to glib to say "they spend 1/100th of what we do so don't worry." This is a paraphrase, not a quote.
I looked up some of the stories about the NIE.
I found this one from the Brookings Institute:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/01_nie_gordon.aspx
quote:
The document focuses only on Iran's work on nuclear weapons design and covert uranium enrichment, whereas the international community's greatest concern has always been Iran's overt enrichment program, by far the greatest technical hurdle on the path to a nuclear weapons capability. (By contrast to enrichment and to the long-range ballistic missile capability that Iran is also pursuing, warhead design and weaponization are relatively fast and easy.) Moreover, and more importantly, the 2007 NIE actually confirms the judgment of a 2005 NIE that Iran will likely be technically capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame, or potentially even as early as 2009. Finally, the 2007 NIE makes more clear than any previous intelligence document that until 2003 Iran was actively and illegally working on a nuclear warhead design, a conclusion that should actually lead to more concern and vigilance on the part of the international community, not less.
Despite all this, it seems clear that the NIE will facilitate Iran's potential development of a nuclear weapon in several ways. .....
Another story
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673
Here's an interesting quote:
That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
and another from Newsweek:
Israeli and other foreign officials asked Bush to explain the NIE, which concluded with "high confidence" that Iran halted what the document describes as its "nuclear weapons program." The NIE arrived at this finding even though Tehran continues to operate uranium-enrichment centrifuges that many experts believe are intended to develop material for a bomb, and despite the CIA's assertion that it had, for the first time, concrete evidence of such a weaponization program. Most confusing of all, the document seemed to directly contradict a 2005 NIE that concluded--also with "high confidence"--that Iran did have such a weapons program.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on May 20, 2008 10:32 PMI am not sure if you are being serious with the Hillary nonsense of running for President from Kindergarten piece or not. I am going to assume you were joking with this nonsense.
So are you saying that Hillary Clinton is lying on her website about Obama? I figured I would use a Democrats webiste so you would not cliam bias, but I never expected that you would claim that Clinton was lying.
Negotiating with a sovereign nation is different than negotiating with terrorist. I hope you know and understand the difference.
So it is ok to negotiate with a sovereign nation that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism? I really do not see what the difference is. If the nation of Iran is sponsoring terrorists with money, weapons, training, etc. how can you say that it is different?
Regarding your statement on his position concerning Clinton meeting with Hamas, I can't find other (unbiased) information to back up your claim. Unfortunately, and this is a slam of Obama, his website doesn't have Search on it to search back awhile in the HQ Blog to find what was posted there. There wasn't anything in the News or Press Releases sections (either way), which was strange, for I thought it was at least a press release when he came out against Carter meeting with Hamas. I can find plenty of stories backing up his position against Carter meeting Hamas, but I can't verify the information regarding any change of position. I also don't remember anything coming through on my email from the campaign about agreeing with Carter meeting with Hamas.
First of all it was Carter not Clinton that I mentioned (an honest mistake on your part I understand). As for other sources here you go: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1636948020080416?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true Obama Criticizes Carter
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1117477020080411 Obama Declines to Criticize Carter
As you well know Reuters is not biased towards the right at all.
Regarding his website, I stated in the previous thread that I don't agree with the precept that his website contradicts itself. Pre-arrangements doesn't equate to pre-conditions. To conflate the two is to put on your "Bush" colored glasses and see a bipolar world of two extremes, and to see a world of either you are for me or against me world. The world is a lot more gray than Bush wants to make it out.
Well that is your opinion and you, as any American, is entitled to their own opinion. It is my opinion that Obama has flip-flopped on the issue as he says that he is the only candidate who will negotiate without precondition; yet later he states that he would have to set preconditions as part of the groundwork. I just do not see how that is not flip-flopping.
I can't find the "tiny" quote. Is there another source than the one Eric linked to. That source is a blocked source from my browser.
I believe that has already been taken care of, but just in case:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/mccain-seizes-on-obamas-tiny-comment/ Tiny comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24712127/ Grave Threat (has the Tiny threat statement too)
You may have had problems finding the statements online, because the majority of the Left Biased Media had the comments listed under McCain attacks type headlines to deflect the statements made by Obama.
Iran became a threat when Jimmy Carter was President. Jimmy C. through the Shah under the bus and encouraged the religious fanatics to take charge. A steep price was and will be paid for that bit of inexperience. Jimmy C. still works his disruptive magic at every opportunity. One may only ask, why?
On the day Reagan took office American prisoners in Iran were released. This timely act speaks volumes.
Readers should be reminded that more American soldiers were killed in action under Clinton, not Bush. And more enemies were killed under Bush, not Clinton.
Obama clearly demonstrates a similarity to Carter and Clinton who through their inexperience and leftist philosophy emboldened American enemies.
Obama represents a step back to the Jimmy Carter days. Misery for all.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 21, 2008 08:32 AMIran largest state sponsored terrorism? Iran supports their fellow Shites in Iraq, and Hezzebolah (sp?) in Lebanon. The first set isn't necessarily terrorists, since they are combatting their fellow countrymen in what could be classified as civil war. Hezzebolah (sp?) isn't Al Quaeda and their beef is with Isreal. There beef with us is indirect due to our support of Isreal. Do you think for a moment that Iran would actually attack Isreal and risk mass destruction? What countries has Iran attacked in the last 50-100 years? Iraq under Sadaam attacked them, not the other way around. They may be big, bad meanies in the region, but not necessarily any more so than Syria. On a scale of supporting terrorism, Syria is right up there.
Yes, I did state Clinton when I meant Carter. Sorry about that. On your Reuters links, thank you. In looking at them, there is not a contradiction, although it may seem on the surface that way. The second link states that (1) Obama feels it isn't his place to criticize Carter, and (2) he wouldn't meet with Hamas. The headline makes the statements appear to be more than they are. On your first link, the article states that Obama disagrees with Carter's meeting with Hamas, and repeats his earlier statement that he wouldn't meet. Again, the headline sensationalizes the actual statements. So, in each Obama himself stated that he wouldn't meet with Hamas. In the first, Obama was hesitant, and basically "punted" stating he wanted to stay out of the issue. In the second, Obama was more forceful and spoke what he really felt. At no time did he agree with Carter's actions.
I have went over several times regarding preconditions. It is really an issue of semantics. Obama doesn't call pre-arrangements being met as preconditions. He has been consistent in pre-arrangements having to be satisfied (i.e., completed lower level staff work). What he objects to is this administration's insistence that Iran agree all the conditions the two countries are going meet over, which is an idiotic policy. If the country agrees to everything ahead of time, what is left to hammer out? It is a simple signing ceremony. It should be noted that James Baker stated the same policy with regards to meeting with foriegn leaders as what Obama is basically stating. This is from a former Secretary of State. It should also be noted that the current administration is indeed meeting with these nations behind the scenes, even though publically they spout off this line in the sand mentality. Obama is just being open and up-front on what actually goes on, following in tradition of past administrations.
On the "tiny" quote, I already stated my response before. Obama didn't state that Iran was a tiny threat. He stated that it was a tiny country and the threat it emposes on the world is no where on the same scale as the former Soviet Union. This is basic fact. Iran could maybe effect a regional conflict (even though they haven't for the past decades/century), but they do not have the military to conduct a global threat. Think about it. In the Cold War, the US had to operate several theater of operations to deter the Soviets around the world. Iran only has the capability for a single theater of operation (its own region). Like I stated earlier, if they actually were irrational and attacked Isreal, they would be wiped off the planet in a matter of hours.
Posted by: tc on May 21, 2008 04:25 PMYou might want to check your fact on Hezzbollah. They have attacked American interests or have you forgotten the Marine barracks in Beirut. Iran Sponsors terroists in Iraq by arming them with money, weapons and training. These terrorists attack our troops, so no they are not just fighting against Sunni's. As for Syria, it has been a known for some time that Syria's government is having it's strings pulled by Iran and has for some time.
One more thing, did Al Qaeda have the military might that the Soviet Union had? So how is it that they caused so many deaths of Americans on our soil? Iran is far more dangerous than the Soviet Union just with it's ties to terrorism. It would not suprise many people if Iran were to supply a terroirst group with a nuke to try to detonate within the US. You are correct that they do not have the capabilites to hit US directly, and they would be wiped out quickly if they stike against Israel directly, but they have shown they are willing to wage war by proxy (just see last summers conflict between Hezbollah and Israel for proof of that). Now imagine they get a nuke and give it to Hezbollah and it is used against Israel. The UN would be besides itself as to how to deal with it as it was not a nation state that directly attacked Israel. This is why Iran is a far greater danger than the Soviet Union.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 22, 2008 02:48 AM"Shame on you for putting the reproductive rights of your daughters and granddaughters at risk."
SMS, I always find it interesting how the opposing sides frame this discussion. Those who believe life begins at conception refer to "murder" while you refer to "reproductive rights." I personally believe it's murder so please don't candy coat the abortive action by referring to it as "reproductive rights." Think about the life you are unilaterally destroying with your "rights." What about the "rights" of the baby?
Posted by: Scott on May 25, 2008 01:12 PM