Obama’s Iran Double-Talk
John on May 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Stolen from HotAir who got it from LGF…
Buried deep in a NY Times story on foreign policy wrangling between Obama and McCain is this gem:
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “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.”
Of course Obama would never meet with the leaders of rogue states unconditionally. Where would anyone get that idea??! Uhh, hold on a minute…
As Allah notes back at HotAir:
Not only did the Prince of Peace say at the YouTube debate last July that he’d meet personally and without precondition with Iran, he reaffirmed that position in November in an interview with — ta da — the New York Times, a fact, incredibly, that’s omitted from today’s article.
I’m sure we’ll be hearing a clarification of Dr. Rice’s remarks shortly. Either that or this space on Obama’s website where his intention to meet Iran’s leader “without preconditions” still appears in black and white is in for some revisions.
Category: Politics |
It would appear that Sen. Obama needs to clarify his message. This is not the first time one of his advisors has gone out and blatantly contradicted him in the media. Could it be that the senator himself is not really sure of where he stands? It seems to me that he just sort of shoots from the hip – whatever sounds good to him at the time – without thinking things through to the logical conclusion (a typical problem with liberal thinking). Scary in a president, wouldn’t you say?
May 11, 2008 @ 4:31 amCarol! Are you calling George W. Bush a liberal? :-)
May 12, 2008 @ 1:41 amA politicial with double talk? Please John, that stretches the limits of credulity!
“Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.”
Vito Corleone, diplomat
Talk to Ahmadinejad. Make him reveal his hand, read his body language, massage him by sticks and carrots, keep him guessing, etc.. The unsophisticated strategy of isolated rhetoric is counter productive. Also the naive diplomacy of Chamberlain is just as dangerous.
Rubbing shoulders is part of information gathering and could open a new and nuanced chapter in strategic diplomacy. We are too worried about image.
May 12, 2008 @ 4:39 amKeith – funny Ha Ha! You’re such a comedian!
Frankly, President Bush isn’t conservative enough for me – but at least he knows what he believes (i.e., Islamic Terrorists are evil people who use evil means to achieve an evil end) and most of what he says and does is consistent with his worldview. Who knows what Sen. Obama’s worldview is? I can’t really tell. His pronouncements don’t seem to match reality (sit down and talk with Kim Il Jong and Achmadinejad and CHavez, et al, without preconditions? Really. How . . . naive.)But it sounds good to the far left of his party, which he needs to satisfy now. I have no doubt that he will “moderate” his positions for the general election and will claim to have been “taken out of context” when people call him on this past statements.
I’m just really, really glad God is in control.
May 12, 2008 @ 9:04 am