Barack Obama’s views on meeting leaders of enemy nations without preconditions is now so chock full ‘o’ nuance that it takes not one, not two, but three reporters from the New York Times to absorb it all — and not one, not two, but three uses of the word nuance!
Yet even the Grey Lady’s scribes seem unconvinced:
The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America’s enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
***
Several aides immediately thought it was a mistake and sought to dial back his answer. But on a conference call the morning after the debate, Mr. Obama told his advisers that he had meant what he said and thought the answer crystallized how he differed from his rivals.
Thus, when Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice tells the paper that Obama had conveyed similarly nuanced policy positions on meetings with foreign leaders of enemy nations months before the YouTube debate, citing a May 2007 interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the question arises as to why Obama decided to double down on the un-nuanced version he offered to a much larger audience in America.
The same tension can be found at Obama’s website:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
To sum up, Obama favors direct, unconditional talks — if Iran does all of those other things. Or Obama is willing to have direct presidential talks that may or may not lead to normal diplomatic relations — as though Iran needs such relations if its leaders are already talking directly to Obama.
In short, there is a word that describes Obama’s Iran policy. That word is not “nuanced .” The correct word is incoherent.
I won’t love you unconditionally if you don’t buy me some beer, Karl.
is it more incoherent or less incoherent then Bush’s policies?
I would like our president to be PRAGMATIC, and treat every country in the world the way it serves the best interests of the USA and does not involve unnecessary wars.
Somehow I think out of all the guys running for POTUS Barack fits that description the best…
I’m sorry, sashal, that you haven’t the brains to figure out Bush’s policies, but your inability to understand them doesn’t make them incoherent.
I’ve got a word for O!’s foreign policy. Sophmoric.
– The other words that come to mind is “redundant”, and “unremarkable”, which simply reinforces what everyone suspected about his position in the first place.
– Because, after all, after many years of trying everything under the sun, what exactly is left really that he could devise that would be different, other than making concessions, or dropping his pants and bending over.
– The problem, or at least one of many, that dog the Left, is that they continue to use the very starry eyed, non-critical attitudes of the true believers, as their approach to all audiences. Unfortunately the opposition actually listens to what they aren’t saying.
Well, Rob the Einstein, I think C.Rice has vacancies in her department, some ambassadors do not appreciate the work in Arab countries, why don’t you apply for the job, you are such an expert in the foreign policies..
As far as figuring Bush foreign agenda , majority of the people with slightest brain functions already did( sorry, you did not qualify)
And they are bullshit based on utopian/ fantastic notion borrowed from French revolution…
Sashal
A PRAGMATIC president might just nuke Iran because they are the current industry leader at exporting terrorism and are completely and totally unwilling to stop. You want an OPTIMISTIC one who doesn’t mind that continuing the same course of action will lead to the same results, which is Iran continuing to do whatever it is Iran wants to do.
– sashal, your #6 is the single most vacuous, beside the subject, ad hominem dumbass comment I think I’ve ever seen from you, and thats going some. Why don’t you just say “I know, no one knows what the fuck O is talking about, but its what we have so we have no choice but to lick his ass on things, and go with it.”
– You’d look a lot closer to smart like Lisa if you took that approach. You’ll never equal her, but a bit closer. Also it would’nt be so damn boring reading your childishly predictable slathering love-O-fest comments.
EG, if that is pragmatic, then let’s nuke it…
Hunter, is that your so called opinion, no different then any other thousands once you posted here? Did I give a fuck?-No….
I wonder if it’s pure coincidence that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s campaign slogan was
“We can do it.” Maybe he was born on an island, too. Barry and Mammy can compare epiphanies over waffles. Except that crazy uncle’s jive about Art Buchwald; everybody knows the Holocaust didn’t happen.
Pragmatic or not, Bush’s War seems to have had the side-effect of destroying al-Qaeda and alienating much of the Islamic world from radical Islamism. Which, as an empiricist, I will take, thanks.
Wrong. You might want to look into that little dust-up known as the American Revolution.
You really are ignorant about the US, aren’t you? Have you managed to find any “neo cons” who criticized President Reagan during the 80s? Or have you abandoned that fantasy for being untenable?
–“….Did I give a fuck?-No….”
– O!…Wheres that vaunted “party that cares”. You don’t give a fuck. Well no shit sashal. When you’re blantantly shoveling shit against a tide of inexperienced young turk bullshit that Obamarama is currently foisting on his in-rapture supporters, of course you don’t give a fuck when you get called on it.
– Clue-bat junior. Thats why they call dumbass comments “dumbass”.
Yeah, but sashal (“informed” as he is by the mainstream and far-left press) doesn’t understand it, which makes it a failure.
Honestly, it is to laugh:
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
What about Germany, France, and Great Britain’s attempt to “talk” to Iran? These stupid pronouncements about attempting diplomacy, as if it hasn’t been tried before, is (as I said) sophomoric.
that’s the legitimate point, Dan.
But it ain’t so.
AQ is still pretty well and sends us messages from Pakistan.
And alienation of Islamic world from radical Islamism did not happen because we invaded Iraq…
Unless you will claim, that the great visionaries and experimenters with human lives of neoconservatism movement predicted the alienation as the result of intervention .
Stomping your foot and whining “is not” is not the basis of an argument, sashal.
So I guess that as long as someone’s releasing poorly dubbed archival footage of OBL, you’ll consider al’Qaeda to be doing “pretty well”? You have low standards. (Ah, but you said you’re supporting Obama… I should have realized that.)
Really? What caused it then?
Pretty much. Did you miss the point of bringing democracy to the Middle East? Did you ignore all the arguments about it?
What about Germany, France, and Great Britain’s attempt to “talk†to Iran? These stupid pronouncements about attempting diplomacy, as if it hasn’t been tried before, is (as I said) sophomoric.
The outcome is not the important aspect of modern leftist policy, although the claim must be that whatever is suggested will have the desired outcome. The important thing is to choose a policy prescription that is among the approved list of possibilities, that is, one that was thought up by someone with the correct credentials and one that is most in line with the correct ideology.
For example, the left has been claiming, ever since I was alive that their plans for our educational system are the only way to go. Education in this country has only gotten worse, and yet, incredibly, the left still touts itself as the one with the solid plan to improve education.
If I was a cynic, which I am not, then I would wonder if this isn’t intended. After all, if you solve a problem then the people hardly need you to solve it again.
I’m surprised you don’t have a lot more typos sasha, what with that huge Bush-hate-boner you’ve got working.
How exactly would we verify that Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terror? Through the UN and the IAEA? Sounds familiar. I could be wrong, but didn’t we go that route with Iraq? And didn’t Iraq keep jerking the inspectors sent in to verify the dismantling of their WMD’s around? Time for another Middle East three card monte.
sashal
do you find it PRAGMATIC!!n!! that the O!the pretender to the Presidency is willing to meet with any nasty dude dictator at any time under any conditions …
but is scared shitless of going to Iraq with McCain and meeting American troops and General Petraeus? Hell, O! refused to meet with Iraq Vets from his own state!
O! talks big about vet benefits … he luvrs him some vets as a group, it’s the individuals he can’t stand.
O! sez he’ll debate with McCain anywhere anytime
I’d love the McCain camp say … “Sure, GreenZone Baghdad, in front of an audience of American Troops”
How about out by the dumpster, after 7th period?
“do you find it PRAGMATIC!!n!! that the O!the pretender to the Presidency is willing to meet with any nasty dude dictator at any time under any conditions ”
is that so, Darleen? what an ass he is. Don’t talk to them, Obama, don’t!…
“but is scared shitless of going to Iraq with McCain and meeting American troops and General Petraeus? Hell, O! refused to meet with Iraq Vets from his own state!”
wow, another undisputed fact, thanks
– Right now sashal, the Obama camp is running around in circles bumping into each other, trying desperately to figure out some plausible position, any plausible position, their fearless leader O! can take in order to avoid that 5000 foot cliff that is the Lefts position on Iraq in particular, and the overall WOT in general.
– Way back around 2002, some egghead poly-sci prof whispered in the DHC’s ear that no party has every won back the WH during war-time, and so they shat their collectivist shorts and went off on this “America – bad, Islamofacists – good” rant, and its been going full blast ever since.
– Now your neophyte junior Senator candidate, barely out of Senate kindergarten, is in the impossible position of having to defend a hair brained foreign policy approach he probably wouldn’t wish on his worst enemy, and all the help you and your fellow travelers give him with your dumbass comments just digs the hole deeper.
– O!…..but carry on….The cliff beckons….
“Did you miss the point of bringing democracy to the Middle East? Did you ignore all the arguments about it?”
Rob, you can shove that French revolutionary talk and bolshevism up your ass.
I have had enough already.
O’K, buddy?
sashal’s attitude is illustrative of the current Narrative, which is that the only reason for invading Iraq was to punish Saddam for the insolence of standing up to American opposition and “hegemonism”; this is the basis for the “illegal war” accusations. The fact that this is, at the top, a bald-faced lie with no basis whatever in reality, supported by ignorant bigotry that assumes that “(neo)conservatives” have no approach other than bashing their opponents, has not stopped and will not stop them from repeating it viva voce whenever the subject comes up.
The only real, possibly unrecoverable, mistake Bush & Co. made was to so strongly emphasize the WMD aspect at the expense of others. It was a reasonably justifiable error; the policy was designed to cut through the media fog and present a clear issue for people to respond to, in the same way any advertising slogan is chosen. In fact, the basis of the policy was a variant of the “root causes” notion so popular among the Left — terrorists do not, by and large, come from organized and functional polities; the intent, from the beginning, was to create a functional polity in Iraq by removing the forces that blocked the formation of one and assist the Iraqis in the subsequent reconstruction. This the Left cannot admit, not least because the neoconservative version of “root causes” actually works where their Marxist-derived concept does not.
Regards,
Ric
My uncle liberated a homeless dude from that dumpster. Then he liberated him from his bottle of MD 20/20
#25
Oh the pains of the giving birth to the coherent policy.
How much would you bet that by september and full blown general election campaign they will be coherent?
At least that is less pain and destruction that the birth of the new era of shining democracy in the artificial country in the ME can bring. Right? is that what Dr.Rice, specialist in the relationship with USSR proclaimed?
Rick, I never claimed illegality.
I guess one can find arguments pro or against on the legal front
I always claimed unnesesarity. And destructive to human beings experimental fantasies of the academicians who gained the power to influence executive decisions…
“…At least that is less pain and destruction that the birth of the new era of shining democracy in the artificial country in the ME can bring…”
– No…..as a matter of fact thats exactly wrong.
– Heh. So you openly admit that any sort of Democracy in the ME, faux or otherwise as long as its anti-Islamofacist, is the kiss of death for you and your party sashal.
– Surprising you’re that candid. Most Marxist refuse to come right out and admit they hate Democracy.
Democracy is too painful. Dictators love you and help you make better choices.
Sashal
do you have a filter on your ‘puter so any negative stuff about O! never gets through?
O! has refused McCain’s invitation to visit Iraq. O! was last in Iraq 2 years ago for 2 days.
But O! certainly has the nasty snark going in order to not answer the question
O! can’t live up to his own rhetoric.
What a nancyboy!
Hunter, I am candid Marxist.
And you are candid confused shmuck
maybe sashal can point out an “organic” country, so we can understand his parameters on what constitutes legitimate sovereingty.
– Even so sashal. Every day that goes by while O! bobs and weaves, and tries to get by on ad hoc glib political double talk makes him look weaker and weaker. The O! camp better come up with something better soon, hes fading fast, and Hillery is still lurking in the wings.
he outcome is not the important aspect of modern leftist policy, although the claim must be that whatever is suggested will have the desired outcome. The important thing is to choose a policy prescription that is among the approved list of possibilities, that is, one that was thought up by someone with the correct credentials and one that is most in line with the correct ideology.
I’m even more cynical. I think O! says this shit because the majority of voters listening don’t realize diplomacy has been tried. It sounds so SENIBLE!1!! Why don’t we just TALK?! Those stupid Republicans … yada yada yada…
For example, the left has been claiming, ever since I was alive that their plans for our educational system are the only way to go. Education in this country has only gotten worse, and yet, incredibly, the left still touts itself as the one with the solid plan to improve education.
You really do NOT want to get me started on that … Detroit PS is missing money again … grre … I feel my head about to explode … must. not. think about. it.
If I was a cynic, which I am not, then I would wonder if this isn’t intended. After all, if you solve a problem then the people hardly need you to solve it again.
See: NAACP
– Of course sashal. Everyone in the world that has the audacity to point out the stupidity of you and your candidates positions are (fill in the blank).
– The Lefts all purpose response to every losing argument, and exactly why they are essentially politically powerless.
– And btw. This McClelland bullshit, in fact trotting out an endless parade of people willing to shill for the Left for money is not going to save Obama’s cookies. McDinosaur is going to roll over him like a MAC truck if he doesn’t start responding in some coherent way.
– Clue-bat #2 junior. Distractions only work for awhile.
I’m even more cynical. I think O! says this shit because the majority of voters listening don’t realize diplomacy has been tried.
Exactly so.
And the fans on the left that already heard him say the US shouldn’t hold itself above other countries and that *he* will meet with foreign leaders now believe that’s what he really means.
Matt Yglesias just had a huge article in the Atlantic lauding this new doctrine. Whatever it really is, it’s brilliant and new.
You’re so cute when you start babbling about bolshevism. It’s like when a young child learns a new word for excrement and insists on repeating it everywhere.
Of course, the young child has an excuse.
I’m not your buddy, pal.
– But even more important, its:
CHANGINESS !!!!1111eleventyoneth!!!!111
My step sent me this – she heard it on the radio. I can’t find what poll it’s from:
Election predictions for Michigan
McCain 44%
Obama 40%
O!-no!
– You and your nutroot buds are worried sashal. Anyone can see that when you resort to the ad hominems. I don’t blame you. It must be a bitch to have to pimp for an empty suit that just looks more and more empty with each passing day, and we’re not even close to the general yet.
– Gonna be a long long summer for the Obamarettess.
Rob, what do you expect from someone who still believes in a failed political and economical philosophy such as marxism. Please sashal, say that Obrack Barama has marxist leanings, and that’s why you support him.
O! isn’t an empty suit. His suit’s filled with all the hopes and dreams of his minions.
Sashal’s quite a complex person. A Marxist who hates Bolshevists!
(I suspect his Marxist statement was an attempt at humor. He’s much more a Buchananite, AFAICR.)
“For example, the left has been claiming, ever since I was alive that their plans for our educational system are the only way to go. Education in this country has only gotten worse, and yet, incredibly, the left still touts itself as the one with the solid plan to improve education.”
This is as good as example as any of the mask the left hides behind. What is and has been happening to the education system in this country is the “improvement” the left desires. To get there they use the words that suggest that they are also desirous of what everybody else considers improvement. Their actions however make a different kind of “improvement”. One that has the outcome of strengthening their hold on power through indoctrination called education.
Changing language and meaning to conceal actions is basic to the left. This is why Jeff G. is so valuable. He brings to light their methods and that tears off the mask. Exposure in ruin for leftists.
Big Bang
Long Summer, let’s hope so. But the probable, even the certain, defeat of Obama in the presidential contest doesn’t go very far toward getting the US out of the coming dark political woods. McCain is not going to help us overcome our crucial divisions. Stalemate, while useful to prevent potential policy harm, doesn’t actually advance the national interest, however it may be conceived. The failures of the republican party to simply understand the positions of its adherents (as reflected, I think, in the Rep. support for Farm bill among others) points to the strains Ric Locke has been suggesting vis a vis the whigs. The Clinging Dems, hanging onto their socialist mantras decades after their ridiculous theories of governance have been thoroughgoingly discredited can’t give us any comfort either. Freedom seems far from here.
FLIPFLOP ALERT
“…In their most recent response to McCains “Trip to Ieaq” challenge, the Obama campaign issued a statemebt this morning indicating a trip to the ME by their candidate has been on the back burners for some time, but was being considered for AFTER the primary election was settled. This is a decided shift from yesterdays Obasma comments , to the effect, that such a proposal from McCain’s people was simply a political stunt and grand standing. The spokesman refused to speculate on just what had changed in the past 24 hours.”
– Uh huh.
– #49 – Agreed. It seems we are damned with an embarrassment of many wrong headed choices.
Let McCain define what Republicans aren’t. He can do that more better in the White House than in the Senate.
“And destructive to human beings experimental fantasies of the academicians who gained the power to influence executive decisions…”
c.f. Kennedy Administration
c.c.f. Johnson Administration
c.c.c.f Carter Administration
c.c.c.c.f Clinton Administration
I was against going to Iraq because it was a naked political ploy prior to being in favor of it.
“#Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 8:17 am #
O! isn’t an empty suit. His suit’s filled with all the hopes and dreams of his minions.”
Oh, he’s like a Nazgul.
Now I get it!
– Ok. This is just “file under fucking weird”.
– Nancy Pelosi has issued a statement to the media, saying that she can “fix” the issues between Obama and Hillery.
– ?
– Ummm…. Nancy…. Michigan and Florida are not going to go away.
Curious boy: “Mom…..isn’t that man running for president?”
Mother: “Yes son, he is…why?
Son: “Well that seesm funny then….He just said he thinks going to Iraq is irrelevant…I think that means he doesn’t think its serious….”
Mom: “Thats right son….He says its unimportant.”
Son: “That seems wrong mom. How will he know what to do if he doesn’t know whats hoing on there?”
Mom: “Well hes a Democrat son….Your dad will explain it all to you when you’re older.”
Son: “Oh ok mom. Boy it would be nice if you and dad didn’t look at my report card, just like he doess’t want to go to Iraq….”
She’s going to submit herself as the compromise candidate. She has BHO’s politics and Hillary’s genitals.
Unfortunately she doesn’t have Obama’s indispensible attribute: high melanin content.
The only possible compromise candidate is Cynthia McKinney.
Regards,
Ric
I’m kinda chuckling over the way sashal asked if anyone had predicted liberating Iraq could turn Muslims against Islamists BEFORE the war, then reacted like I’d just crapped in his Rice Krispies when I pointed out that, yes, they had.
It’s like he didn’t expect an answer, let alone one that made it clear he was wrong.
Yeah, but Barry is black.
So vote for him based on that. He can fix the problem between himself and Hillary, because he is black.
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
WSo the only good Cowboy is an unarmed, appeasing Cowboy, eh? Will “Dude” wear a white flag lapel pin?
Rob, she made a bunch of promises if the Democrats won back the Congress in 2006. I’d list them, but what’s the use. The last honest thing I’ve heard from a Democrat was Rep. Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize the Oil Companies! Viva il comunismo!
Stanley Kurtz profiles ACORN and Obama’s association with it at NRO today. Not relevant to his foreign policy beliefs (at least not directly) but certainly relevant to his socialist bona fides.
btw, any of you noticed today Obama the pandering WHORE said
“….everyone should be bilingual.
Naturally, he wouldn’t say, ‘This is America. Everyone should speak English,’
Has Obama the whore EVER met an illegal alien whose ass he DIDN’T want to kiss?
Rob (#64):
Waters didn’t merely say “nationalize”; she preceded it with “socialize” before allowing a long pause and then changing it to “nationalize.” I was stunned when I saw it on TV.
For me, I loathe Obama at the outset, but I can’t take a candidate seriously who is advised by Susan Rice. I saw her interview shortly after Wright had his meltdown at the National Press Club in April. She almost started crying on national television. Andrea Kramer later confirmed my assessment when she reported that Rice was visibly shaken by Wright’s behavior. The point? Just as Jimmy Duggan (played by Tom Hanks) said in “A League of Their Own” (“There’s no crying in baseball”), there’s no crying in politics and especially foreign policy. She’s a disgrace.
Beyond that a comment about some of material from the Obama Web site that was posted in this entry.
“Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior,”
First, a pronoun problem–Iran is a country, so the first “their” should be an “it.” Read later in the excerpt, Iran is referred to as an “it.”
Second, the paragraph begins by using the conditional “would,” but then switches to “will” for the rest of the paragraph.
Third, a pet peeve, but I’d change the “like” to “such as” because they are providing examples not a comparison.
Who writes the Obama nonsense? They need a copy editor.
Obama seems to be boldly going toward the status quo
Personal take on Barry O: he’s a pussy. Dyed-in-the-wool softy-boy. The Chinese, Russians and even the dipshit Iranians will walk all over his pussy ass, just like the Big K tried with young Johnny Kennedy. Cuban missile crisis, anyone? Ring any bells?
I really can’t believe this pathetic, simpering empty suit, spit out from the fetid bowels of the Daley Machine is actually gonna be the Donk nominee for President. It’s the second coming of Jimmuh Cahtah, I tell ya… Only without the peanuts.
I’d leave out the “pea” in that sentence.